Washington Post Admits Wuhan Lab Leak Theory Was Dismissed Because it was Supported by Trump

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

At a Jan. 30, 2020 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican told colleagues: “This coronavirus is a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl for China. But actually, it’s probably worse than Chernobyl, which was localized in its effect. The coronavirus could result in a global pandemic. I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Cotton was widely mocked by the liberal media over those remarks and similar ones to follow.

Looking back to the early days of the coronavirus, anyone who mentioned that the virus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Saying the virus may have been created in that lab was even worse.

In recent weeks, however, journalists who once scoffed at such a notion are opening to the possibility.

The Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, who was himself the subject of a fact-check involving remarks about Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, actually admits that the legacy media’s anti-Trump bias may have been behind their rejection of the lab leak theory.

Kessler excuses both himself and his colleagues from performing their due diligence by saying that the lab leak theory “often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon,” which he finds preposterous. (When the truth finally comes out, he may be proven wrong about that as well. But I digress.) Surely any journalist worth his or her salt would be able to separate the two, and investigate both theories. Did the virus escape accidentally from the lab that was tied to the CCP’s military or was it intentionally released?

It was China’s “lack of transparency” and “renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab” that finally opened their eyes to the possibility that the virus may have leaked from the lab, the only lab in China that is known to work with this specific pathogen.

He finally gets around to the real reason: former President Donald Trump. Here too, Kessler tries hard to absolve himself and the rest of the media. He writes: “The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.”

I’m sure by now, nearly a year and a half after the coronavirus reached our shores, U.S. intelligence agencies have more solid information about its origins. But in those early days, all Trump had to go on was vague intelligence.

As for his anti-Chinese rhetoric making it easier to ignore his claims, wouldn’t a serious investigative journalist be able to put the President’s comments aside and look at the facts? Isn’t that a journalist’s job?

Isn’t Kessler essentially saying that the theory was dismissed mostly because of its connection to Trump?

Kessler takes readers through a COVID-19 timeline. Most of the early reactions were based on the lab leak theory and left the door open to the possibility that it could have been intentional.

Later in January, The Daily Mail and The Washington Times published articles making the connection between the virus and the Wuhan lab.

On Feb. 6, “Botao Xiao, a molecular biomechanics researcher at South China University of Technology, posts a paper stating that ‘the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.’ He pointed to the previous safety mishaps and the kind of research undertaken at the lab. He withdrew the paper a few weeks later after Chinese authorities insisted no accident had taken place,” according to The Post.

Did any journalists wonder why Xiao withdrew the paper? That researchers who didn’t acquiesce to the CCP’s version of events had a way of disappearing?

On Feb. 9, Cotton struck back via Twitter against China’s ambassador who had said his remarks were “absolutely crazy.”

Following more criticism from The Washington Post, Cotton responded with the following Twitter thread:

The hypotheses include: “1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market); 2. Good science, bad safety (eg, they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred); 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach); 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in); Again, none of these are ‘theories’ and certainly not ‘conspiracy theories.’ They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence.”

The turning point in the debate over COVID’s origins came on Feb. 19 when a group of public health scientists published a joint statement, which was scolding in its nature, in the elite medical journal Lancet.

It read: “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”

According to The Post, “the statement was drafted and organized by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance,which funded research at WIV with U.S. government grants. (Three of the signers have since said a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration.)”

These so-called “experts” did the world a great disservice by signing on to this statement. They provided China with an excuse to escape blame for the virus. It was this letter that did more than anything else to turn the tide away from the lab leak theory.

The media would point to this letter from the “experts” and ridicule anyone who mentioned the lab leak theory.

So, why now are they changing their tune? Why did PolitiFact retract their earlier fact check (which debunked the lab leak theory) last week? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing. Perhaps they’re privy to something that hasn’t been made public yet. Or maybe it’s because there is growing circumstantial evidence that points to the lab leak theory.

Whatever the reason, Kessler’s article was a feeble attempt to explain why the vast majority of journalists, once again, failed to do their jobs.

A version of this article was posted in The Western Journal.

Truth-Teller in Chief?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Alexandra ❤️A life without animals is not worth living❤️ from Pixabay

How often do you read or listen to the radio, television or an internet news publication and then almost immediately stop and think to yourself, “What the heck, are they serious?” In my case, it’s usually ‘Whaaaa?,’ followed by my internal monolog of ‘I’ll take ‘Things that Didn’t Happen for $200, Alex’.

This surprise at the facts seems to be happening to me with ever increasing velocity. Lately, I read about untrue race hoaxers with increasing regularity, those graduates of the Al Sharpton School of Inflammatory Lies; people like Twanna Brawley, Jussie Smollet, Dauntarius Williams (as reported by the Wichita Eagle) or the yet-to-be-named idiot who single-handedly shut down the Albion campus, reported in the American Crisis. I just shake my head in disbelief. Why, how, who benefits?

Nasty stuff and it turns out its even nastier when false. Even if we find out it didn’t happen, it’s always investigated and reported as a hoax way too late; the lie about what didn’t happen is already embedded into the lexicon of popular culture and could be fueling the next round of those ‘mostly peaceful’ protests.  Damage done.

The ‘news’ organizations?  They seem to pass on as much uninvestigated dreck as those who start the falsehoods. Two plus years of Russian/Trump campaign collusion sound familiar? Good little lad Treyvon Martin vs. that awful white-Hispanic George Zimmerman, anyone?

Government spokespersons? Ever force yourself to sit through a White House press briefing? Hard to tell what’s worse; the implied narrative ‘question’ that rambles on longer than a broken Biden synapse or the dog’s breakfast of tangentially related factoids of an answer from the spokesperson at the podium.

I think to myself, where is that unvarnished source of truth that we so desperately need? Where can we go to get the facts, and nothing but the facts, about the events of the day? Didn’t we used to have a place like this?

Mr. Narrator (interrupts): “Richard Edward, you know who you are missing. Think a little harder about it and the name will come to you.”

Richard Edward: “Well, I usually say, when I see something that I think is bogus, ‘I’ll take things that didn’t happen for $200, Alex’…..”

Yes! I remember now. George Alexander Trebek, the greatest source of correct answers in the world. You knew in your knower that when Alex gave you the correct answer, there was no way on God’s earth that he was mistaken. Mr. Trebek and his merry band of fact gatherers were the best on the planet. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FBI, NSA, CIA – you guys don’t have nutin’ on Alex and his gang.

Mr. Narrator:  “I knew it would come to you, Richard Edward. Mr. Trebek was always one of your heroes. His intelligence obvious, his personality engaging and maybe most importantly, his ability to deliver the correct answer to the contestants who got it wrong was always gracious, without condescension.”

Richard Edward: “Mr. Narrator, we really need Mr. Trebek, or someone like him, in our world … especially in the world of news reporting. I need someone whom I can trust when I hear them speak. I want to listen to someone who can deliver good and bad news, without any bias. I want to listen to someone who will raise his or her own eyebrows when they read the news, especially when they themselves find the story suspect. I want someone who can admit that they didn’t know the answer or need more facts before they can give an answer.”

“Mr. Narrator, as I search the net and change channels on my LCD display, I feel like Diogenes, casting about in the world of news anchors and reporters, hoping for success before my candle burns out.”

Mr. Narrator: “Ain’t gonna happen Richard Edward. Nowadays, good news is considered to be fast news, truth aside. If you aren’t first, you lose.”

“No bias? Don’t you know everyone who isn’t a POC is racist? Yep, heard it on the news just last week. Can’t trust a racist, can we?”

“Solid sources? C’mon man, anonymous sources close to the _____ are so much easier to create and quote. You really think anyone is going to go on record in this day of cancel culture, anyway?”

“You want honesty, Richard Edward?  Marry a lie detector operator. You want nothing but the truth? Well, even if a story isn’t completely true, ask any reporter why it’s better to be ‘directionally’ correct, to give the impetus to the narrative – they can always make adjustments for the facts as they appear, weave them into the narrative, at a later date.”

In my ‘knower’, I believe that Mr. Narrator is correct. Facts and truth have become causalities of speed and agenda. Is there any candidate in our culture who can wear the mantle of unvarnished truth giver? (I’ve got two people in mind, but the jury is still out on both and besides that, one of them is a lawyer).

Is that why Mr. Trebek was so popular? I mean, it was just a game show, right? Was it just his pleasing, engaging personality or was it something more? Did he become, albeit in our collective subconscious, our speaker of truth, our trusted voice, the source of fact? Who would you trust more back in the day, Mr. Trebek, Mr. Politician or Mr. Newscaster?

If, like Richard Edward and Mr. Narrator, you feel America needs a new, truth-teller-in-chief, please leave us a comment.  Feel free to nominate someone in your comment and give old Diogenes a hand.

— Richard Edward Tracy

Joe Biden and the ‘One Note Samba’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by David Stephanus from Pixabay

Ah, the week is coming to an end, and what a week it has been. Our AWOL president showed his face for an hour or so yesterday, carrying a binder full of reporters (no worries, Senator Romney, those binders of women still belong to you) and the weight of the free world on his shoulders.

Since that blessed event which featured the “moral and decent man,” I’ve been waiting for the long line of press releases articulating the forthcoming activities for the Biden-Harris Administration’s goals. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that the battle plan to Build Back Better has been little more than a repudiation and reversal of the policies and programs of the Trump Administration.

Donald Trump’s presidency was a symphony of activity. In four short years, he accomplished so much that even his most ardent supporters might miss an achievement or two in recall. The list is so long, Richard Edward cannot recount the entire four years of activity. Just the highlights of Mr. Trump’s tenure would make a swamp creature politician proud to include them on their resume.

Since I have turtle recall, I searched the internet and found the “score sheet” for every instrument in the Trump administration orchestra. The list of accomplishments during President Trump’s tenure requires hundreds of individual bullet points and over 10,000 words of information. There isn’t time or space to annotate each one. It’s well worth your time to review Trump Administration Accomplishments. I guarantee you will be amazed at how much was achieved, and how much you never heard about – looking at you mainstream media.

In contrast, the new Biden-Harris Administration appears to be preoccupied with tearing down existing rules, methods and processes, without regard to efficacy. I am still not sure if that means building back better or just trying to eradicate all reminders of their predecessor.

Cue Narrator: “Richard Edward, were you looking for the list of goals that the Biden Administration was going to pursue?”

Richard Edward: “You bet. I have been anxiously waiting to see how much further the Biden Administration can take America, building upon the successful programs of the Trump Administration. I mean, c’mon man, what a foundation from which to build your new presidency, right?”

Narrator: “Well, Richard Edward, it looks like the Biden list you seek may be shorter than you anticipated.”

Richard Edward: “That can’t be right. … Biden has served in the federal government for what, 47 years? He must have a laundry list of ideas and policies that will continue to make America great. President Trump did literally hundreds of positive things for America so President Biden, with all of his prior experience, should have even more cool stuff. See, CNN’s got a list of orders signed in his first few months. … I’ll bet it’s really detailed and long and ….”

Mr. Narrator:  “Okay Richard Edward, lets take a look.”

He presents a list compiled by six CNN writers of Biden’s “achievements” through 8 March 2021 (emphasis mine):

President Joe Biden has signed a flurry of executive orders, actions and memorandums aimed at rapidly addressing the coronavirus pandemic and dismantling many of former President Donald Trump’s policies.

The executive actions Biden has taken in the first days of his administration include halting funding for the construction of Trump’s border wall, reversingTrump’s travel ban targeting largely Muslim countries, imposing a mask mandate on federal property, ramping up vaccination supplies and requiring international travelers to provide proof of negative Covid-19 tests prior to traveling to the United States.

So far, Biden has signed more than 50 executive actions, 22 of which are direct reversals of Trump’s policies. Most of these actions have addressed the novel coronavirus, immigration and equity.

Biden defends the number of executive actions he has issued as necessary to undo what he considers “bad policy” inherited from Trump, especially on immigration.

To date, nine of his 11 actions regarding immigration are reversals of Trump’s policies.

And straight from the horse’s mouth as he signed a stack of executive orders on immigration in the Oval Office on Feb. 2. (via CNN):

And I want to make it clear — there’s a lot of talk, with good reason, about the number of executive orders that I have signed — I’m not making new law; I’m eliminating bad policy. What I’m doing is taking on the issues that — 99% of them — that the president, the last president of the United States, issued executive orders I felt were very counterproductive to our security, counterproductive to who we are as a country, particularly in the area of immigration.

After reading the CNN article, I sit back from my laptop, somewhat stunned. I ask myself, “What is this all about? Why is Biden undoing everything that 75 million American citizens thought were moving our country in the proper direction? Even during the pandemic, we were overall winning.”

Low unemployment, increased opportunity for minorities, energy independence, new Middle East peace prospects; my favorites on the Trump “win list” swirl in my brain. There are hundreds more.

Richard Edward: “Weren’t we told that Biden is a moderate Democrat who will consider the well-being of Americans, our laws, our economy, our health and safety, and doing what’s best for America regardless of politics? Now I am learning that Biden’s really only knows how to tear down. He’s taken a wrecking ball to Trump’s accomplishments.”

Narrator:  Cue the music.

Faintly, the upbeat melody of Antônio Carlos Jobim’s One Note Samba wafts out of my stereo speakers. The English lyrics, written by Jon Hendricks, seem so appropriate for the situation.

This is just a little samba
built upon a single note
Other notes are bound to follow but the root is still that note
Now this new one is the consequence
of the one we’ve just been through
As I’m bound to be the unavoidable consequence of you

There’s so many people who can talk and talk and talk
And just say nothing or nearly nothing
I have used up all the scale I know and at the end I’ve come
To nothing, or nearly nothing

Richard Edward:  “Mr. Narrator, I hate the music you chose to make your point. Unfortunately, I get it. Mr. Biden only knows how to play one song, using one note, a discordant note of destruction. Why didn’t Biden learn to play something new over 47 years? If only we had a president who really knew how to play more than one note on one instrument, who had a repertoire of music and the ability to improvise during his performance. Biden has used up all of the scale and truly, come to nothing.”

If you think a president’s inability to do nothing but tear down what has come before him is an American Crisis, please let us know your thoughts in the comments.

—  Richard Edward Tracy

Two Black Women Violently Attacked, Hurled Racial Insults at Korean Store Owner; Media Ignores it [Video]

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Last week, 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.

From President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to every MSNBC and CNN anchor, there was outrage. It was only when FBI Director Christopher Wray announced that the shootings did not appear to be racially motivated that the sermonizing from the left subsided.

An actual racially motivated attack against an Asian occurred in North Harris County, Texas last week. But you didn’t hear about it. With the exception of KPRC 2, a local media outlet, this attack was ignored by the media. Why? Because the perpetrators were black. It didn’t fit their narrative that all whites are racist.

Five black women entered a beauty supply store owned by Jung Kim, a 59-year-old Korean woman. After they knocked over several wig displays on purpose, Kim asked them to leave the store. The women left and then returned. They knocked over the displays again and two of them, Daquiesha Williams and Keaundra Young, began to violently “pummel” Kim as they “hurled racial insults” at her.

Kim was left with a severely broken nose which will require surgery to fix.

The attack, caught on the store’s surveillance camera, can be viewed in the video below.

Her son, who works in the store with her, tried to fight the women off his mother and received minor injuries.

KPRC 2 reporter Andy Cerota said the situation escalated from there. Kim’s husband arrived and the women tried to run over him with their car. This is also caught on camera.

 

None of us are surprised by this story or by the media’s failure to report it. Although the mainstream media has lost a great deal of credibility over the last few years, miraculously they still remain the primary source of news for many Americans.

Unfortunately, there are no immediate solutions. The large networks and newspapers are so powerful and so closely tied to Big Tech and the Democratic Party, it’s unlikely that we will see significant change anytime soon. (Please see my earlier post: The Introduction of Race as a Central Issue in American Politics Can Be Traced to an Aug 2019 Staff Meeting at The NY Times.)

The right wing media is small compared to the established media. The key will be to develop a large, parallel, conservative media. Former President Donald Trump’s plan to create a large social media company is just the ticket. The growth of companies like Newsmax (who I will soon be writing for!) OANN and others, will help bring about change as well.

In the meantime, we need to keep on putting the truth out there.

Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa: What’s In A Name?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Richard Edward and the Narrator Argue over Motive

It isn’t often in this life I am so stunned by events that my brain simply recoils in disgust and my “opinion generator” fails to start. Today, however, is one of those days.

I am reading about the senseless slaughter of ten Americans, who dared to venture into the confines of a public supermarket. My anger rises and my lizard cortex takes over. I am pissed. Fox News, as they normally do, encapsulates the events of this tragedy in a concise and professional manner. Fox writer Stephanie Pagones updates the story with the names of those killed and the name of the suspect who pulled the trigger on our neighbors.

Pagones writes:

Boulder, Colo., police officials updated the public regarding Monday’s mass shooting at the King Soopers grocery store that left 10 people dead, including the first police officer to arrive on the scene, revealing they have charged the suspect with 10 counts of first-degree murder.

Police identified the suspect as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a 21-year-old Arvada, Colo., man, though his motive for the attack was not specified at this time. Police also identified the 10 victims, whose families were notified by 4 a.m. local time. They range in age from 20 to 65 years old.

Yesterday, some reporters, nieces of U.S. politicians and twitter users immediately seized upon the “white man goes on shooting rampage” narrative.

Today, there is a different story to consider and the response to the story seems a lot quieter now. Could it be the name of the suspect is taking the mainstream media into territory they don’t really like, aren’t comfortable with? Was it really the dreaded ‘white man’, or could it have been someone else from a more protected category of identity politics?

Narrator: “Richard Edward, whatever are you writing about?”

Richard Edward: “It’s the name” I respond to no one.  “It’s the suspects name. It sounds like its foreign, almost like it’s the name of someone from the Middle East.”

Narrator: “Don’t be silly. Everyone has a name. How could it be foreign sounding? Besides, if it was someone from the Middle East, the media would have buried the story on the back page.”

Richard Edward: “Well, its weird in that it’s actually four names and they all start with the letter “A.” I mean, c’mon, who has two middle names that all start with the same letter?”

Narrator: “Well, there was A. A. Milne, but its only three letters and one letter is an M. He was British anyway. That’s a tough question, Richard Edward.”

Richard Edward: “The fact that this killer’s name is so unusual and that he has allegedly killed ten people without apparent motive, well, there just has to be something more to this than meets the eye.  I am going to do some sleuthing.”

So, just like the rest of the reporters in the mainstream media who were never trained to find and report news, I start with an internet search. I enter “4As.”

Expecting to find something that ties this unusual name to the Middle East and the cultures/religions from that area, imagine my surprise when my search resulted in a match with the American Psychological Association website.

Now, my search result didn’t tell me anything about names or if they were associated with any particular religion, but it did tell me about social behavior. I am starting to become nervous. Why does the search result scare me? Because the 4 As represent the four primary symptoms of schizophrenia.

Fundamental Symptoms:

According to Eugen Bleuler, the four primary symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormal associations in thinking, autistic behavior and thinking, abnormal affect (including flat and inappropriate affect), and ambivalence. These symptoms are also known as the Four As.

Now I am hopelessly confused. I so wanted this to be an easy answer – a Muslim man went on a rampage and killed ten other people, this comes shortly after Syrian territory was bombed by U.S. forces. On Feb. 26, NBC News reported: “Biden orders airstrikes in Syria, retaliating against Iran-backed militias.”

Simple, right? U.S. bombs Syria and a Syrian-born person living in the U.S. responds and kills his neighbors. One and done, I can go meet the rest of the press corps at the bar for happy hour.

Then my inner Richard Edward surfaces, kicks my lizard cortex back into hibernation and asks, “Okay, smart guy, what about the 4As connection you discovered. Is there a connection with a guy who has four As in his name and what you read on the associations website?” Nah, can’t be. Four As simply has to be a coincidence, right?

Sure, the guy might be an angry Muslim (we aren’t sure about this), but what if Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa is also a schizophrenic, and his Muslim roots have nothing to do with his violent behavior – what if it’s all about his mental illness? Ugh. Just when I think Occam was right, my 4As research tangles up my brain.

First A:  Abnormal associations in thinking. I don’t know, but the guy did take a semiautomatic weapon to a grocery store. Not something I’d normally carry on a trip to the grocery store.

Second A:  Autistic behavior and thinking. I don’t know, but I’ll guess that shooting ten of your neighbors isn’t found on the scale of acceptable social norms.

Third A:  Abnormal affect (flat or inappropriate affect). I don’t know, but I did see his picture. There is a definite lack of ‘something’ there.

Fourth A:  Ambivalence.  I don’t know and who cares.

I do know that the guy is a murdering slug and regardless of his motive, religious jihad, simply bat-guano crazy or both, he is still a murdering slug.

So, his foreign name doesn’t really matter. Religious affiliation doesn’t matter. Muslim, atheist, druid, or Jonestown cultist, killers are killers. His lack of empathy for his fellow man can be the result of mental illness or religious indoctrination.

My thoughts immediately turn to the families and loved ones of those who were killed by Mr. 4 As. They may never know the real reason their loved ones were slaughtered, but the best I can hope for is for justice to be delivered swiftly and that the hearts of those surviving family members can find solace in the grace and embrace of a God who tells us that we should love one another.

Richard Edward thinks the guy’s name might be relevant as to why this happened. If you disagree or have a different theory from your sleuthing, please leave a comment.

— Richard Edward Tracy

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.

Trump: WaPo Was Courageous to Admit Their ‘Mistake’ in Story about Call to Georgia Election Investigator

Advertisements

Former President Donald Trump was incredibly generous, uncharacteristically so, to The Washington Post in a Tuesday night interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo. When asked about their correction of a very pivotal story about his December 23 telephone call with Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, he replied:

It probably affected the Senate race. But it was a terrible thing.

I will say this. I was very happy that the Washington Post had the courage or whatever you want to call it to at least admit their mistake. I hope it was a mistake. But I think probably it came from the people in Georgia that run an election process that frankly is just absolutely terrible. … They were told something that didn’t exist and it made me sound bad and when I heard it, I said, ‘That’s ridiculous. I never said that.’

The Washington Post did a correction. A lot of pressure was put on them but they did a correction because they realized what they did was wrong.

Actually, they printed a correction because The Wall Street Journal had published an audio recording of the call which revealed the actual words that had been said. A recording, I might add, that had been deleted by someone who knew what would happen if it were found and later discovered in a “junk folder” .

The Post published the following correction to the story:

Correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now.’ A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.

On Tuesday, the Post published an article to explain how this ‘error’ may have occurred. It was written by their media critic, Erik Wemple, He wrote that the “individual familiar with the call … spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.”

The original story had been “based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson had briefed on [Trump’s] comments.”

Wemple spoke to Fuchs before writing his piece. She told him, “I believe the story accurately reflected the investigator’s interpretation of the call. The only mistake here was in the direct quotes, and they should have been more of a summary.”

“I think it’s pretty absurd for anybody to suggest that the president wasn’t urging the investigator to ‘find the fraud. These are quotes that [Watson] told me at the time.”

Is it the job of Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, to interpret the President’s intent? Especially when she had not directly spoken to him. Certainly not. As a public official, people expect the facts from her office, rather than her interpretation of the facts.

“Misreporting the words of the highest elected official in the land is a serious lapse — and one that, in this case, seems so unnecessary,” Wemple wrote.

“The existence of the call itself is a towering exclusive. When it comes to phone calls, the only good sources are the ones who are dialed in,” Wemple explained. “The former president’s partisans will attempt to memorialize The Post’s story as a fabrication or ‘fake news.’ But a central fact remains: As the Journal’s recording attests, Trump behaved with all the crooked intent and suggestion that he brought to every other crisis of his presidency.”

And with that comment, journalist extraordinaire Erik Wemple interprets the President’s intent as well. Suddenly, we understand why Fox News’ Tucker Carlson used to distribute “Erik Wemple” coffee mugs as a joke during a now-discontinued feature of his program called “Final Exam.”

After Wemple’s article had run, the Post stated, “We corrected the story and published a separate news story last week — at the top of our site and on the front page — after we learned that our source had not been precise in relaying then President Trump’s words. We are not retracting our January story because it conveyed the substance of Trump’s attempt to influence the work of Georgia’s elections investigators.”

And with that, we’ve hit the trifecta. The media outlet whose slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” became the third party to interpret the President’s intent.

First, Watson injects her bias against Trump into her recap of the call to Fuchs. Fuchs embellishes the call further in her conversation with Washington Post writer Amy Gardner, who adds her own highly partisan views to what she’s been told.

Next, the other major networks jump on the bandwagon. They all run the story claiming that they had independently confirmed it. Oh really? With whom? Did they speak to Fuchs as well? And she felt it was okay to do so because, after all, that’s what the President had intended?

And what about Watson herself? She knew the quotes attributed to the President were false. Yet she didn’t feel the need to correct the record?

This little story perfectly illustrates the anatomy of a smear. Really it’s no more complicated than a game of “Telephone” among like-minded adults.

And it happens every day.