The media uses killings by a homosexual Muslim Democrat to accuse Republicans of owning guns and saying things that violate their cherished delusions.
In apparent desperation, the media uses killings to smear their opponents in politics and culture. Omar Mateen was reportedly a Muslim, a homosexual, and a registered Democrat, but, according to Joy Behar it is all Trump’s fault for offending Muslims.
Weird. If terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, then why is anyone who allegedly offends Muslims guilty of provoking terrorism?
The video below shows Behar, on The View, not only claiming that Trump is an ISIS recruiter, but doing so to cheers from the audience.
I wish Behar’s comments were an anomaly, but they seem to be “the party line”—a term that seems more literally true than ever.
In fact, lately I’ve heard NPR arguing that, based on Mateen’s background of poor grades and school disciplinary problems, he should be classified as merely a killer, not a violent extremist. Apparently, it is fine to “profile” bad students as long as you don’t mention their religious ideas and associations.
I shouldn’t have to refute this nonsense but I will anyway. Basically, the media is using “psychological profiling” to argue that Mateen was no Jihadist. This is ingenious because the scam superstition science of profiling can rationalize any evidence.
But what happens when you try to use profiling to make real-world predictions? Does anyone remember the Beltway Snipers? The profilers made all sorts of predictions. Here’s an old article from 2002 in the Baltimore Sun:
“He stops and shoots and doesn’t hear the screams,” Fox dramatically divulged to his alarmed audience. “Others enjoy squeezing the last breath from their victim. It makes it easier for him psychologically to murder.” Clifton Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler, agreed: “This is someone who is cold, who is calculating, who has the skills and doesn’t care who they hurt.”
“This could be a disgruntled employee who was fired. It is someone who is angry,” offered Brent Turvey, who wrote Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, (Academic Press, 1999) Turvey was echoed by Robert K. Ressler, best-selling author of I Have Lived in the Monster (St Martin’s Press, 1998), and Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI, (St.Martin’s Press, 1993).
Where does the Beltway Sniper hang out? “He’s a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs,” declared Fox.
And, of course, the killer was Caucasian.
They all agreed with Van Zandt that “this is something white males do.” Fox and Van Zandt, along with most others, estimated his age to be in the 20s to early 30s.
Eventually, despite the “help” from the profilers, the police apprehended John Muhammad, age 41, and his teenage partner. They were both unemployed drifters and neither was white.
In other investigations, innocents have had their reputations ruined by profilers. One of the FBI’s victims mentioned in the article is security guard Richard Jewell. He was transformed by a profile “from the hero who discovered a pipe bomb at Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park, to the monster who planted the bomb that killed one and injured 116 of the people he tried to save.”
Yet this is the kind of “reasoning” Liberals are relying on to save their narrative that the only real villains are the First and Second Amendments. Guns and conservative speech are being blamed for those dead bodies.