Sunday, May 15, 2022

Here's What the Buffalo Shooter's Alleged Manifesto Actually Says

 BY MATT MARGOLIS | P J MEDIA

AP Photo/Joshua Bessex

On Saturday afternoon, an 18-year-old from Upstate New York traveled to Buffalo and live-streamed himself shooting several people, ten of whom he killed, at a Tops Friendly Market in a predominantly black neighborhood. The suspect was captured by law enforcement and has been arraigned on 10 first-degree murder charges.

With their usual swiftness, leftists on Twitter quickly launched a seemingly coordinated effort to blame Fox News and Tucker Carlson for allegedly radicalizing the suspect.

As word of the shooting quickly spread on social media, so did reports that the shooter had posted a 180-page manifesto online, explaining his racist and anti-Semitic motives and detailing how he planned to carry out the attack. PJ Media obtained a copy of the manifesto, and while we cannot independently verify its authenticity, it is widely believed to be genuine, and some left-wing operatives are intent on claiming that the manifesto proves the shooter was radicalized by Fox News and right-wing politics. I’ll show you want the manifesto actually says (though I will not link to it).

First, despite the coordinated effort to blame Fox News, the manifesto attacks a number of news networks, including Fox, for hiring Jews.

A search of the entire manifesto also yields no mentions of Tucker Carlson and specifically mentions “the internet” as where he got his beliefs.

Others have tried to link the shooter in a more general way to right-wing politics. For example, the so-called conservative S.E. Cupp of CNN tried to blame “right-wing extremism” for the shooting.

But here’s what the manifesto says about the shooter’s politics:

Did you always hold these views?

When I was 12 I was deep into communist ideology, talk to anyone from my old highschool and ask about me and you will hear that. From age 15 to 18 however, I consistently moved farther to the right. On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist.

So, the shooter describes himself as “authoritarian left-wing,” but the left and S.E. Cupp are trying to blame “right-wing extremism.” Okay?

Later in the manifest, the shooter insists, “I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

But let’s not pretend that, assuming the manifesto is legitimate, the rhetoric espoused in its pages means the shooter cannot be legitimately aligned with either major political party or political movement. While I would argue that the views expressed in the manifesto echo rhetoric of radical leftism, the manifesto is full of nonsense and garbage that is at times inconsistent. The people who were quick to exploit the situation to attack Fox News and conservatives were wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.

Here's What the Buffalo Shooter's Alleged Manifesto Actually Says – PJ Media

BIDEN’S BIG BROTHER WILL BE WATCHING OVER YOU

By William Haupt III [Tennessee Watchdog Journalist, Columnist, Author, and Citizen Legislator via The Center Square]

FBI INVESTIGATED CONCERNED PARENTS

By JOHN HINDERAKER | Powerline

Biden's attorney general puts domestic terror and civil rights at top of  agenda | US justice system | The Guardian

You all remember the story: the Biden Department of Justice coordinated with the National School Boards Association to arrange for FBI investigations of parents who are unhappy about their local schools teaching racism and anti-Americanism (Critical Race Theory) and gender confusion, and requiring masks. The episode was so sordid that many state school board associations dropped their affiliation with NSBA, and most people doubted that the FBI would be craven enough to follow Attorney General Merrick Garland’s patently unconstitutional directive.

But follow it they did. Yesterday Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, acting on tips from unhappy FBI agents, wrote Merrick Garland to criticize the diversion of FBI resources to investigations of parents who dissent from “woke” ideology and care about their children’s education:

The FBI’s counterterrorism bureau reportedly created an internal “threat tag” in fall 2021 to track alleged threats against school boards following an October 4 directive from Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland released his directive after the National School Boards Association called on the Biden administration on September 29 to investigate parents who allegedly threatened boards over policies on school masks and critical race theory, and to determine whether the parents had violated the Patriot Act or hate crimes laws. (The NSBA subsequently apologized for releasing the letter.)

The FBI labeled “dozens” of investigations with the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS,” Representatives Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R., La.) claimed in their new letter on Wednesday, citing FBI whistleblowers.

Emphasis added. These “investigations” were ridiculous and could only have been intended to intimidate conservative parents from being involved in their public schools. One might note that these parents merely attended public school board meetings to express their opinions. I am not aware of a single case where they demonstrated outside the home of a school board member.

One investigation allegedly began after the FBI received a tip that a mom had told a local school board, “We are coming for you.” The complaint “alleged that the mom was a threat because she belonged to a ‘right wing mom’s group’ known as ‘Moms for Liberty,’ and because she is a ‘gun owner,’” the congressmen wrote. An FBI agent reportedly interviewed the the mom, who said she was upset about a school mask mandate and wanted to elect new board members.

Sounds like an insurrectionist! But imagine having a couple of FBI agents ring your doorbell on instructions from the Attorney General because you don’t align politically with the Biden administration.

In another instance, the congressmen wrote that an FBI agent interviewed a tipster who admitted he had “no specific information or observations . . . of any crimes or threats.” The tipster had submitted a complaint against an anti-mask-mandate dad, claiming that the dad “fit the profile of an insurrectionist,” and the FBI had opened an investigation into the dad.

The “tip line” sounds like something out of Red China. More details on that case from the Congressmen’s letter:

Another one:

The congressmen also claimed that the FBI began an investigation into Republican elected officials in a certain state because a Democratic state-party official claimed that the Republicans “‘incited violence’ by expressing public displeasure with school districts’ mask mandates.”

Contemplate that: a complaint by a “Democratic state-party official” was enough to trigger an FBI investigation of “Republican elected officials” who opposed mask mandates. What country are we living in?

Many liberals–perhaps most–believe that conservative, pro-freedom, pro-American speech should be illegal, if it isn’t already. What I want to know is, are there any Democratic House members willing to take a stand against this obviously unconstitutional overreach by the Attorney General? So far, I haven’t heard of any.

It is shocking to think that Merrick Garland was once nominated to the Supreme Court. Thank God he was not confirmed.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/fbi-investigated-concerned-parents.php

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Reuters data tech: I was fired for showing police do not kill more black suspects

 BY 


The following is a news analysis.

Reuters News data expert found:

  • Trump was correct when he stated that 'police kill more whites than blacks.'
  • Reuters repeatedly published false information saying the opposite.
  • Police kill white suspects at a 7% higher rate than blacks.
  • Among armed suspects, police shoot whites at a rate 70% higher than blacks.
  • On an average year, police shoot 26 unarmed white people and 18 unarmed black people.
  • Roughly 10,000 black people are murdered each year by criminals in their own neighborhoods.

It is an apt comment on the state of news.

News organizations are now frequently used as tools to further certain narratives and propaganda, letting their employees know that any that are facts off-the-narrative are unwelcome.

I tracked this trend at CBS News prior to asking to leave my contract midstream due to the disturbing trends.

Similar stories have now been uncovered at many major news organizations where the news is too often not about facts and public interest but is a carefully curated product of corporate and political interests.

Now, comes the account from the former director of data science at the news agency Reuters.

Zac Kriegman says he stumbled on a huge story that could save lives. It was about "black Americans being gunned down across the country and the ways in which we report on that violence."

I had been following the academic research on BLM for years (for example, hereherehere and here), and I had come to the conclusion that the claim upon which the whole movement rested—that police more readily shoot black people—was false. 

But Kriegman says his information flew in the fact of the narrative the Black Lives Matter narrative the agency was bent on advancing both internally and to news consumers. He was fired.

Below is his story.


I was fired for showing police do not kill more black suspects

By Zac Kriegman

Until recently, I was a director of data science at Thomson Reuters, one of the biggest news organizations in the world. It was my job, among other things, to sift through reams of numbers and figure out what they meant.

About a year ago, I stumbled on a really big story. It was about black Americans being gunned down across the country and the ways in which we report on that violence. We had been talking nonstop about race and police brutality, and I thought: This is a story that could save lives. This is a story that has to be told.

But when I shared the story with my coworkers, my boss chastised me, telling me expressing this opinion could limit my ability to take on leadership roles within the company. Then I was maligned by my colleagues. And then I was fired.

This is the story Reuters didn’t want to tell. 

I had been at Thomson Reuters for over six years—most recently, leading a team of data scientists applying new machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms to our legal, tax and news data. We advised any number of divisions inside the company, including Westlaw, an online legal research service used by most every law firm in the country, and the newsroom, which reaches an audience of one billion every day around the globe. I briefed the Chief Technology Officer regularly. My total annual compensation package exceeded $350,000.

In 2020, I started to witness the spread of a new ideology inside the company. On our internal collaboration platform, the Hub, people would post about “the self-indulgent tears of white women” and the danger of “White Privilege glasses.” They’d share articles with titles like “Seeing White,” “Habits of Whiteness” and “How to Be a Better White Person.” There was fervent and vocal support for Black Lives Matter at every level of the company. No one challenged the racial essentialism or the groupthink.

This concerned me. I had been following the academic research on BLM for years (for example, hereherehere and here), and I had come to the conclusion that the claim upon which the whole movement rested—that police more readily shoot black people—was false. 

The data was unequivocal. It showed that, if anything, police were slightly less likely to use lethal force against black suspects than white ones. 

Statistics from the most complete database of police shootings (compiled by The Washington Post) indicate that, over the last five years, police have fatally shot 39 percent more unarmed whites than blacks. Because there are roughly six times as many white Americans as black Americans, that figure should be closer to 600 percent, BLM activists (and their allies in legacy media) insist. The fact that it’s not—that there’s more than a 500-percentage point gap between reality and expectation—is, they say, evidence of the bias of police departments across the United States. 

But it’s more complicated than that. Police are authorized to use lethal force only when they believe a suspect poses a grave danger of harming others. So, when it comes to measuring cops’ racial attitudes, it’s important that we compare apples and apples: Black suspects who pose a grave danger and white suspects who do the same. 

Unfortunately, we don’t have reliable data on the racial makeup of dangerous suspects, but we do have a good proxy: The number of people in each group who murder police officers. 

According to calculations (published by Patrick Frey, Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County) based on FBI data, black Americans account for 37 percent of those who murder police officers, and 34 percent of the unarmed suspects killed by police. Meanwhile, whites make up 42.7 percent of cop killers and 42 percent of the unarmed suspects shot by police—meaning whites are killed by police at a 7 percent higher rate than blacks.

If you broaden the analysis to include armed suspects, the gap is even wider, with whites shot at a 70 percent higher rate than blacks. Other experts in the field concurthat, in relation to the number of police officers murdered, whites are shot disproportionately.

There has been only one study that has looked at the rate at which police use lethal force in similar circumstances across racial groups. It was conducted by the wunderkind Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who is black, grew up poor, had his fair share of run-ins with the police and, initially, supported BLM. In 2016, Fryer, hoping to prove the BLM narrative, conducted a rigorous study that controlled for the circumstances of shootings—and was shocked to find that, while blacks and Latinos were likelier than whites to experience some level of police force, they were, if anything, slightly less likely to be shot. The study generated enormous controversy. (In 2018, Fryer was suspended from Harvard over dubious allegations of sexual harassment.)

Unfortunately, because the BLM narrative was now conventional wisdom, police departments, under intense scrutiny from left-wing politicians and activists, scaled back patrols in dangerous neighborhoods filled with vulnerable black residents. This led to soaring violence in many communities and thousands of needless deaths—otherwise known as the Ferguson Effect. 

For many months I stayed silent. I continued to read Reuters’ reporting on the movement, and started to see how the company’s misguided worldview about policing and racism was distorting the way we were reporting news stories to the public. 

In one story, Reuters reported on police in Kenosha, Wisconsin shooting a black man, Jacob Blake, in the back—but failed to mention that they did so only after he grabbed a knife and looked likely to lunge at them.

In another story, Reuters referred “to a wave of killings of African-Americans by police using unjustified lethal force,” despite a lack of statistical evidence that such a wave of police killings had taken place. (In 2020, 18 unarmed black Americans were killed by police, according to The Washington Post database.)

And in yet another, Reuters referred to the shooting of Michael Brown as one of a number of “egregious examples of lethal police violence,” despite the fact that an investigation conducted by the Justice Department—then run by Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder—had cleared the police officer in question of all wrongdoing.  

A pattern was starting to emerge: Reporters and editors would omit key details that undermined the BLM narrative. More important than reporting accurately was upholding—nurturing—that storyline.

________________

Reuters data tech: I was fired for showing police do not kill more black suspects | Sharyl Attkisson

Friday, May 13, 2022

Amid Nationwide Shortage, Illegal Immigrants Get Baby Formula First, Lawmaker Claims

By Joseph Curl • DailyWire.com

Amid a nationwide shortage of baby formula, a Republican lawmaker is claiming that illegal immigrants detained by the border patrol are being given priority over Americans.

Republican Rep. Kat Cammack (FL) posted videos on social media as she claimed the Biden administration is shipping “pallets” of baby formula to border facilities.

“They are sending pallets, pallets of baby formula to the border,” Cammack said in online postings on Wednesday.

“Meanwhile, in our own district at home, we cannot find baby formula,” she added, displaying the photo that showed empty store shelves.

Cammack said a border agent has been sending her photos of the deliveries of baby formula. “They’re receiving pallets and more pallets of baby formula at the border,” she said. “This was taken at Ursula processing facility [in McAllen, Texas] where thousands are being housed and processed and then released,” she said.

She said in one message the border agent told her, “‘Kat, you would not believe the shipment I just brought in.’ He has been a border patrol agent for 30 years and he has never seen anything quite like this. He is a grandfather and he is saying that his own children can’t get baby formula.”

“I don’t know about you, but if I am a mother, anywhere, anytime in America, and I go to my local Walmart or Target or Publix or Safeway or Kroger or wherever it may be that you shop and you are seeing bare shelves and you are seeing signs that you are not able to get baby formula. And then you see the American government sending by the pallet thousands and thousands of containers of baby formula to the border, that would make my blood boil,” she said.

“I am so angry about this,” she added. “It is not the children’s fault at all. But what is infuriating to me is that this is another example of the America last agenda that the Biden administration continues to perpetuate.”

The baby formula shortage has forced some parents to drive hours in often futile searches, and the situation might get worse.

__________

https://www.dailywire.com/news/amid-nationwide-shortage-illegal-immigrants-get-baby-formula-first-lawmaker-claims