Shelley Slebrch and other angry parents and community members protest
after a Loudoun County School Board meeting was halted by the school
board because the crowd refused to quiet down, in Ashburn, Virginia,
June 22, 2021.
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein.
American parents are organizing to fight racist critical race
theories being taught in their kids’ schools. Attorney General Merrick
Garland, once touted as a moderate, has responded by asking the FBI to treat them as domestic terrorists.
As befits the Biden administration, this over-the-top
authoritarianism is accompanied by the stench of corruption, as it turns
out that Garland’s son-in-law is in the business of selling educational
materials on CRT.
Garland’s self-dealing and thuggery are grounds for resignation. But
that isn’t the worst thing that’s happened. Bad as it is, the Biden
administration’s poisonous combination of graft and authoritarianism can
be remedied by getting rid of the administration — something that, if
polls are any indication, is eminently doable.
The bigger problem is that school boards all over America seem to be
growing ever more authoritarian themselves. Instead of serving as
bastions of small-scale representative democracy, boards seem to regard
themselves as above accountability to the voters and parents.
It was, after all, the National School Boards Association
that, citing shaky claims of “threats,” asked the administration to
investigate anti-CRT parents as “domestic terrorists,” specifically
invoking the Patriot Act in its letter.
People hold up signs during a rally against critical race theory being
taught in schools at the Loudoun County Government center in Leesburg,
Virginia on June 12, 2021. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
That claim of “threats” is an old move. Some readers may remember a
story from Brooklyn five years ago, in which a father was arrested after
complaining to a teacher. The teacher had refused his son permission to
go to the bathroom and kept the son sitting in his own excrement for
hours. When the father, quite understandably, showed up to complain, the
teacher told police she felt “threatened”; the father was arrested,
charged and subjected to an order of protection.
The magic words “I feel threatened” are now used by bureaucrats to
escape accountability for their own misbehavior. That’s what the NSBA
has done, on a larger scale, in the face of widespread parental
dissatisfaction with curricula that tell white and Asian students that
they are inherently racist and black students that they are permanent
victims.
The go-to response: How dare you criticize us, peasant!
In Shakopee, Minn., the superintendent reported a single mother to
her employer for the crime of taking to Facebook to criticize how the
board chairwoman handled testimony from the mother of a special-needs
child at a hearing. The complaint led to her suspension and possible
firing, causing Minnesota state Rep. Erik Mortenson to accuse the
chairwoman, Kristi Peterson, of “abuse of power” and “straight-up
bullying.”
Public education is justified on the grounds that it has a civilizing
influence. Behavior like this by its leaders makes me wonder.
And as I’ve noted in these pages before, teachers and administrators
in Loudoun County, Va., ran a mailing list aimed at taking action
against parents who took issue with their system’s commitment to CRT.
One of them, school-board member Beth Barts, now faces a special
prosecutor investigating her for misconduct. Barts is accused of asking
members of her group to target, harass and even hack parents opposing
the teaching of CRT.
The campaign of intimidation doesn’t seem to be working: Groups representing 427,000 parents responded
to the NSBA letter, and they weren’t having any of it: “NSBA cites a
tiny number of minor incidents in order to insinuate that parents who
are criticizing and protesting the decisions of school boards are
engaging in, or may be engaging in, ‘domestic terrorism and hate
crimes.’ NSBA even invokes the Patriot Act. The association of
legitimate protest with terrorism and violence reveals both your
contempt for parents and your unwillingness to understand and hear the
sincere cries of parents on behalf of their children.”
But it’s a disgrace that such a campaign exists at all and that our
public schools are under the control of people who think such a response
to criticism justified or appropriate.
As some Americans focus on cleaning things up at the national level,
it’s also clear that people need to be paying a lot more attention on
the local level. Want to make a difference? Run for school board.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.[SOURCE]
Paul Vaughn testified about the Biden administration's targeting of pro-life activists.
A Christian pro-life father of 11 described before Congress on Wednesday the armed FBI raid on his home in Tennessee after the Biden administration brought charges against him over a peaceful pro-life protest.
Paul Vaughn, of Centerville, Tennessee, appeared
before the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Limited
Government on Wednesday to speak about his experience being prosecuted
by the Justice Department under the FACE Act. The
FACE Act is a Clinton-era law that was supposedly to protect both
abortion facilities and churches from violence. In practice, the law has
been used by the Biden administration to prosecute peaceful pro-life
activists across the country.
The
FBI arrested Vaughn on October 5, 2022, after he was involved in a
peaceful protest at the Carafem abortion facility in Mt. Juliet,
Tennessee, in March 2021, where protesters prayed and sang Christian
hymns. Vaughn was charged with violating the FACE Act and engaging in a
conspiracy against rights, a Reconstruction-era charge meant to crack
down on violence by the Ku Klux Klan.
“My
house was assaulted, my wife and children were terrorized, and I was
kidnapped at gunpoint by four armed men,” Vaughn told lawmakers of the
arrest. “I had just sent three of my children to the car so I could take
them to school when the house began to shake from a loud banging near
the front door. I heard men shouting from my front porch, ‘Open up!
FBI!’”
Vaughn said that he
saw two unmarked SUVs with flashing lights outside his home and men with
automatic rifles and a pistol aimed at his door.
“I
opened the curtains on my front door to find three men with guns
trained on the front door,” he said, adding that the federal agents did
not identify themselves.
“I
later learned at the same time three of my children, ages 12, 14, and
18, were being detained in the side yard on the edge of the woods by a
fourth armed man. I was taken without the presentation of a warrant or
identification when requested. Make no mistake: this was an armed
conflict and I was unarmed. Lethal force was abused to abridge my
God-given and constitutionally secured rights.”
Vaughn said that the FACE Act was passed as a tool to “stifle free speech and abuse the rights of Christian conservatives.” Data show
that 97% of all prosecutions of the FACE Act since its inception have
been against pro-lifers. Under Biden, the Justice Department has brought
24 FACE Act cases with all but two coming against pro-life activists.
“The
FACE Act was ostensibly passed because of violence. But as my family
knows very well, all it did was give violence the cover of law and place
it in the hands of the government,” Vaughn said.
Paired
with the felony conspiracy charge, the activists have faced over a
decade in prison and hundreds of thousands in fines. Multiple pro-lifers
are currently serving prison sentences, including Cal Zastrow, one of Vaughn’s co-defendants in Tennessee.
Vaughn, who was convicted in January, was sentenced
over the summer to three years of supervised release and has been
prohibited from leaving the Middle District of Tennessee. He was given a
special exception to travel to D.C. for the hearing.
Other
testimony during the hearing came from Alliance Defending Freedom
lawyer Erin Hawley and Thomas More Society lawyer Steve Crampton, who
has served as lawyer for many of the pro-life defendants prosecuted
under Biden.
The hearing was
led by Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Dan Bishop (R-NC). Roy has consistently
called for the FACE Act to be repealed and demanded that the Justice Department keep its records of the pro-life prosecutions.[SOURCE]
Congressional Republicans said on Wednesday they want answers from FBI Director Chris Wray about the tactics his agents used last Friday to arrest Roger Stone, a longtime adviser and confidante to President Donald Trump.
Stone
was taken into custody, and his Fort Lauderdale, Florida, home
searched, in a pre-dawn raid by a swarm of agents in armored vests and
brandishing long guns. The raid came after a seven-count indictment
brought by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Since then, Stone
and some in the conservative news media have criticized the FBI
operation as heavy-handed. Stone called it "Gestapo tactics." Former
Republican governor and ABC News contributor Chris Christie characterized the handling of the arrest as "overkill," although other former law enforcement officials have called it standard procedure.
Trump told the Daily Caller
on Wednesday he would "think about" asking the FBI to review its use of
force and cited concerns over the number of agents and types of
vehicles on the scene for an alleged white collar crime suspect.
"I thought it was very unusual," Trump said.
Other Republicans have demanded answers.
"I
am concerned about the manner in which the arrest was effectuated,
especially the number of agents involved, the tactics employed, the
timing of the arrest, and whether the FBI released details of the arrest
and the indictment to the press prior to providing this information to
Mr. Stone's attorneys," Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter to Wray on Wednesday.
Graham’s committee has oversight of the FBI.
Rep. Doug Collins,
the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote Wray on
Wednesday as well, asking for information on the raid and suggesting
that "such a show of force may also unnecessarily place agents’ lives at
risk by potentially heightening the risk factor for everybody
involved."
The FBI and special counsel’s office declined to comment.
Following his
arrest and initial court appearance last week, Stone told reporters
gathered outside a federal courthouse in Florida that agents had
"terrorized" his wife and dogs.
"They could simply have contacted my attorneys and I would have gladly surrendered voluntarily," Stone said.
Prosecutors
wrote in court documents that alerting Stone in advance of an imminent
indictment would risk "the defendant fleeing and destroying (or
tampering with) evidence."
"While I firmly
support law enforcement taking into account threats to officer safety,
flight risk, and the need to ensure evidence is preserved," Graham
wrote, "I am leery that a subject of the Special Counsel’s
investigation, who had retained counsel, had publicly stated that he
believed that he would at some point be indicted, and was apparently
willing to surrender voluntarily, was arrested in a pre-dawn raid at his
home."
"Although
I am sure these tactics would be standard procedure for the arrest of a
violent offender, I have questions regarding their necessity in this
case," Graham continued. "The American public has had enough of the
media circus that surrounds the Special Counsel's investigation. Yet,
the manner of this arrest appears to have only added to the spectacle.
Accordingly, I write to seek justification for the tactics used and the
timing of the arrest of Mr. Stone."
Stone’s indictment
includes five counts of lying to Congress, one count of obstruction of
an official proceeding, and one count of witness tampering. He faces up
to 50 years in prison if found guilty, but Stone insists he’s innocent
and has pledged to fight the charges.
Stone is scheduled to appear again in a Washington, D.C., federal court on Friday.
ABC News' Mariam Khan contributed to this report.
Editor’s
Note: This story previously misidentified the statutory maximum for
Roger Stone’s crimes as 20 years in prison. The actual maximum is 50
years in prison. We regret the error. [SOURCE]
House resolution condemned Kirk's murder and called for rejection of political violence
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
D-N.Y., on Friday opposed a resolution honoring the life and legacy of
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated Sept. 10
during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University.
In
a speech on the House floor, Ocasio-Cortez claimed the resolution was
introduced on a "purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress."
After
condemning Kirk's murder, she noted the resolution "brings great pain
to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow and the
legacy of bigotry today" and tore into the late 31-year-old's ideology.
"We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk
was, a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black
Americans the right to vote was a mistake, who, after the violent attack
on Paul Pelosi, claimed that ‘some amazing patriot' should bail out his
brutal assailant and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges
– it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of
it,'" Ocasio-Cortez said.
"His
rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated and sought to
disenfranchise millions of Americans — far from the ‘working tirelessly
to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution."
The resolution described Kirk as a "devoted Christian," "dedicated
husband" and a "loving father" of two, explaining his founding of
Turning Point USA and commending his personification of the First
Amendment.
It resolved the House of Representatives to condemn
Kirk's assassination and all forms of political violence; commended law
enforcement for catching Kirk's alleged killer; extended condolences to
Kirk's family; honored Kirk's life, leadership and legacy; and called
upon all Americans — regardless of race, party affiliation or creed — to
"reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold
American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans."
In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, 57 other Democrats voted against the resolution, including Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Maxine Waters of California.
However, 95 Democrats voted to adopt the resolution, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.
Here is a breakdown of public comments Kirk made regarding the topics Ocasio-Cortez mentioned in her dissent.
AOC
CLAIM: Charlie Kirk was "a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act
that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a 'mistake'"
During
a Feb. 2, 2024, podcast episode with "Fearless" host Jason Whitlock,
Kirk acknowledged his ideas about the Civil Rights Act and its role in
American society were "provocative," thanking Whitlock for the
opportunity to further explain.
"It's an awful provocative
conversation I started. I stand by it, and I appreciate the opportunity.
I mean this sincerely, Jason — to explain it. There's even some people
on the right that have been just throwing insults, and they would never
have me on the show to explain it."
Kirk went on to say he
extensively researched what the Civil Rights Act was, what it tried to
accomplish, how it was sold to the American people at the time and how
it is perceived now by the modern academic consensus.
"At the time, of course, there were legislative priorities that
needed to be done by the federal government to stop bitter segregation —
I've always held that," Kirk said. "The American people thought they
were getting minor legislative adjustments to say that segregation based
on race is evil and wrong. In reality, what they got was the birthing
of a permanent deep state of bureaucrats that were looking for racism
where it didn't exist, eventually with affirmative action, quotas and
hiring practices expanded beyond race into LGBTQ-type issues.
"What
the Civil Rights era really birthed was this idea that it's the federal
government's job not just to say that discrimination is wrong, but to
actively go against any sort of disparate outcome and try to even the
score under the guise of equity."
Kirk
went on to discuss Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech,
saying he "100% bought into" the need for equality, but adding he
believed the Civil Rights Act was expanded further than the initial
intention.
"At the time, a majority of Americans wanted to see an
end to desegregation," he said. "They didn't want to see new segregation
put forward in eventually anti-White hiring practices, affirmative
action or the entire federal bureaucracy having racial hiring quotas.
"Eventually,
you look around and you have the left defending Black-only dormitories
at hundreds of universities across the country, Black-only graduation
ceremonies. … You look back to the Civil Rights Act and you say maybe we
overreached and built something we didn't intend, a federal Leviathan
in the form of anti-racism."
AOC CLAIM: After Paul Pelosi's violent assault, Charlie Kirk claimed ‘some amazing patriot' should bail out his brutal assailant
In
an Oct. 31, 2022, episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show," titled "A Naked
Smear of MAGA," Kirk discussed the Oct. 28, 2022, attack against Nancy Pelosi's husband, saying directly, "I'm not qualifying it, I think it's awful."
David
DePape, a Canadian citizen living in the U.S., was sentenced to life in
prison in 2024 after attacking Paul Pelosi with a hammer, causing two
head wounds and injuries to his right arm and hand.
DePape, who
Kirk described in the episode as someone who was "not sane," admitted to
devising a plot to hold then-Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
hostage and "break her kneecaps" if she did not admit to allegedly
telling "lies" about the investigation into Russian interference in the
2016 presidential campaign. She was not home at the time of the attack.
Kirk's comments about "bailing out" DePape were in relation to the concept of disparity within cashless bail policies.
Under
cashless bail policies, a suspect who is arrested for a crime is
released before a trial without having to pay bail or bond. The fees
were put in place to ensure suspects do not flee and incentivize them to
make scheduled court appearances.
While many liberal
jurisdictions have enacted the policies, critics claim cashless bail
puts the public at risk and enables repeat offenders.
"I’m not
qualifying [the attack], I think it’s awful," Kirk said. "It’s not
right. But why is it that, in Chicago, you’re able to commit murder and
be out the next day? Why is it that you’re able to trespass,
second-degree murder, arson, threaten a public official, [and receive]
cashless bail? This happens all over San Francisco, but if you go after
the Pelosis … you’re [not] let out immediately. Got it."
Kirk
went on to question why DePape was still incarcerated in San Francisco,
a Democratic stronghold that had cashless bail policies in place at the
time of Paul Pelosi's attack.
Just a few months prior to the
assault, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced her
office established a policy that would seek cash bail in certain
misdemeanor cases, claiming bail "unfairly penalizes those with less
financial means and disproportionately affects defendants of color."
"Why
is the conservative movement to blame for gay, schizophrenic nudists
that are hemp jewelry makers, breaking into somebody's home?" Kirk said
while discussing DePape's ideology. "Why are we to blame for that
exactly, and why is he still in jail. Why has he not been bailed out? By
the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay
Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this
guy out. I bet his bail is like 30[,000] or 40,000 bucks. Bail him out
and then go ask him some questions."
Kirk went on to wish Paul Pelosi a quick recovery and condemned the attack a second time.
"So,
look, I wish him the best. I wish him a speedy recovery," Kirk said.
"No one should have to encounter that sort of violence."
AOC CLAIM: Charlie Kirk "accused Jews of controlling ‘not
just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s
Hollywood, it’s all of it.'"
In an Oct. 26, 2024,
episode of the "The Charlie Kirk Show" podcast, Kirk claimed Jewish
donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical, open-border
neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits.
"This
is a beast created by secular Jews," Kirk said. "Now it’s coming for
Jews, and they’re like, ‘What on Earth happened?’ It’s not just the
colleges. It’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all
of it."
Kirk, a longtime supporter of Israel, later argued in a Nov. 16, 2023, episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show,"titled
"Elon Musk Smashes the Digital Narratives," that some Jewish
organizations and donors, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
helped fund "anti-White" or "cultural Marxist" ideas aligned with the
Black Lives Matter movement or Diversity and Equity Inclusion (DEI).
He noted he does not believe all Jewish people are anti-White, specifying that he did "not like generalizations."
"I
don't like generalizations," Kirk said in the episode. "Not every
Jewish person believes that. But it is true the Anti-Defamation League
was part and parcel with Black Lives Matter. It is true that some of the
largest financiers of left-wing anti-White causes have been Jewish
Americans. They went all in on woke, and it wasn't just ADL. It was some
of the top Jewish organizations in the country that have done that. In
fact, we have seen this with the recent retreat of Jewish donations that
are no longer going to be administered to colleges."
Kirk added
that, after the October episode, critics labeled him antisemitic,
clarifying he was "glad that Jewish Americans are reconsidering their
financing of cultural Marxism, and people misunderstood it intentionally
and slandered us as being antisemites."
While "Cultural Marxism"
has been used as an antisemitic phrase, commentators have been known to
use it without antisemitic intent.[SOURCE]
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, joined by Majority
Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., center left, leads a vigil to honor
conservative activist Charlie Kirk who was shot and killed at an event
in Utah last week, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Sept. 15, 2025.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House overwhelmingly passed a resolution honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk
on Friday, but a significant number of Democrats voted against it,
highlighting the deepening political divide in the wake of his
assassination.
The resolution, which praised “the life and legacy”
of Kirk, passed the Republican-controlled House with 310 votes in
favor. While 95 Democrats supported the resolution, 58 voted against it
and 38 voted “present,” effectively abstaining. Republicans had warned
ahead of the vote that no one should oppose the measure, but many
Democrats said they felt Kirk’s death had been politicized and the
resolution elevated views they disagreed with.
“Today’s resolution
underscores the majority’s recklessness by choosing to author this
condemnation and honoring on a purely partisan basis,” said Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a high-profile Democrat who voted
against the resolution. “We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was.”
Speaker Mike Johnson said there was “no partisan language” in the
resolution and there was “no excuse” for anyone not to vote in favor of
it.
“We are honoring someone who contributed greatly to the free marketplace
of ideas and public discourse and who died in a disgraceful, horrific
manner,” Johnson told reporters.
The vote capped a week of heightened tensions in Congress and across a
nation grappling with Kirk’s assassination and the legacy he left
behind. Many on the right have blamed the left for fostering a political
climate that led to his death, pushing for more than condemnation and
allowing little room for criticism of his views. In the days since,
backlash to such criticism has led to firings — ranging from teachers to journalists — as conservative activists have launched aggressive pressure campaigns.
“No single member of the House Democratic caucus, not a single
member, condones political violence in America,” House Democratic Leader
Hakeem Jeffries said Friday.
Still, Democrats who voted against the measure were heavily criticized.
“Who could vote against that?” President Donald Trump said Friday afternoon about the resolution.
Earlier this week, the House narrowly declined
to punish one of its own over commentary in the aftermath of Charlie
Kirk’s assassination. The Republican effort to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar
came after she criticized Kirk’s views of gun ownership and race
relations in the aftermath of George Floyd’s 2020 death in Minneapolis.
After the vote fell short, Trump responded by calling Omar “terrible.”
While
Friday’s resolution aimed to honor Kirk and denounce political
violence, many Democrats took issue with its language. The text
described Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, as someone who was
“seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the
Republic,” and that he stood “as a model for young Americans.”
The
resolution sparked intense internal debate among Democrats. While party
leadership ultimately backed it, they did not push members to vote a
certain way. Some lawmakers saw it as a political trap designed to force
them into endorsing Kirk’s views.
“This Republican resolution was designed as a political ‘gotcha’ —
trying to force every member of Congress to lift up the views of Charlie
Kirk rather than simply condemning his assassination,” said Washington
Rep. Pramila Jayapal in a statement. “I cannot do that.”
Democratic
Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who was among a few in the party to
attend a vigil honoring Kirk at the Capitol earlier this week, said she
supported the resolution “because his horrific killing, and this
volatile time require all of us to reject violence, hate, and anger
without hesitation.”
Many Republicans in Congress are set to
travel to Arizona on Sunday for Kirk’s funeral. Johnson, who plans to
attend the funeral, gave a long tribute on the House floor on Thursday,
saying the the best way to honor Kirk was to “advance the principles
that he advanced, and to adopt his approach.”
National
Republican Campaign Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said that
Democrats are “so consumed by hatred and political violence that they
couldn’t even bring themselves to support a resolution condemning the
assassination of Charlie Kirk.”[SOURCE]
—-
Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
The BBC's Nada Tawfik on the key takeaways from Tyler Robinson's first court appearance
Mike Wendling and Shayan Sardarizadeh
The roommate of the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk had one question.
"Why?"
"I had enough of his hatred," Tyler Robinson wrote back. "Some hate can't be negotiated out."
On
Tuesday, authorities released messages between Robinson and the
roommate from the hours after the shooting. Officials have said the
unnamed roommate was a "biological male" who was transitioning from man
to woman and was in a romantic relationship with the defendant.
Prosecutors also gave further details that could point to a possible motive – although there is still much that is not known.
According
to an indictment, Robinson's mother told police that over the last year
or so, Robinson had become more political and left-wing, "more pro-gay
and trans-rights oriented".
And in family conversations before the shooting, Robinson allegedly accused Kirk of spreading hate.
Prosecutors
say Robinson left a message for his roommate: "I had the opportunity to
take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it."
During
Tuesday's news conference, Utah County prosecutor Jeff Gray said
instead of deleting the messages like Robinson asked, the roommate
provided the missives to police.
Messages on shell casings
The
messages and interviews with family members form crucial parts of the
indictment against Robinson and give some insight as to his state of
mind.
In addition, investigators have
also said that four shell casings were found alongside a rifle
discovered in a wooded area near the Utah Valley University campus.
The
shell casings had messages engraved in them which, prior to Robinson's
arrest, were among the only potential clues as to the killer's motive -
and have been the subject of much speculation.
One
unfired round had the words "Hey fascist! Catch!" along with an up,
right and three down arrows – mostly likely a reference to a video game,
Helldivers 2, indicating one of the game's special moves.
Another
shell casing, authorities say, read "NoTices Bulge OWO What's This?" - a
reference to a meme about furry subculture and online roleplaying.
The
BBC has also seen an online profile allegedly owned by Robinson on a
website dedicated to furry fandom, suggesting he may have had an
interest in the subject.
Another
casing was inscribed with lyrics from the song Bella Ciao, which honours
World War Two-era partisans of the Italian resistance who fought Nazi
Germany. The song has also appeared in a video game, a TV series and has
been covered and remixed many times in the years since.
The fourth cartridge read: "If you Read This, You Are GAY Lmao" – another online reference.
But
the exact meaning of the messages, if indeed they are intended to have
any meaning at all beyond a prank, is still unclear. The nature of
online language, with its layers upon layers of irony, means that
multiple interpretations are possible.
In
the messages to his roommate Robinson said the engravings were "mostly a
big meme", indicating perhaps that they should not be taken as a
serious statement.
Pictures of social
media accounts apparently owned by Robinson and his roommate which have
been circulating online are mostly focused on gaming - it appears that
both Robinson and his roommate were keen video gamers.
The
accounts do include a few scattered comments on politics, none of them
particularly conclusive or directly indicative of a motive. The BBC has
reviewed the accounts, but has not been able to confirm that they belong
to the pair.
According to the
messages released by prosecutors, when asked by his roommate how long
he'd taken to plan the attack, Robinson responded: "A bit over a week."
Prosecutors
in Utah mostly declined to answer questions from the media on Tuesday,
and although the state's Governor Spencer Cox said Robinson had a
"leftist ideology", there are still gaps in what we know about a
possible motive.
For instance, it's
unclear what specifically Robinson found objectionable about Kirk. It's
also unclear how Robinson might have been radicalised and what role his
online activities might have had in that process.
Authorities have been tight-lipped about what role - if any - the suspect's politics played in the attack.
When Grey, the county prosecutor, was asked directly whether transgender activism inspired the shooting, he declined to comment.
There
also remains the possibility that the suspect may have had no coherent
political stance. In several recent US mass shootings and assassination
attempts - including the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in
Pennsylvania last July - killers have appeared to have a jumbled set of
political beliefs, or no clearly defined ideology.
The
FBI recently recognised a new category of threat called nihilistic
violent extremism or NVE, defined by a general hostility to society and
desire for chaos rather than a sharply defined ideology.
FBI Director Kash Patel said in a Senate hearing Tuesday that his agency had seen a large uptick in cases involving NVE.
In
the Kirk case, Katherine Schweit, a former FBI agent and prosecutor,
said investigators will be busy tracking Robinson's online
communications and interactions with friends and family members to glean
more information.
"That gives us a
lot of insight into somebody's pathway to the violence," she said,
adding that agents will "piece them all together to see how someone
moves on the pathway from frustration all the way to choosing to commit a
violent act."
The prospect of
capital punishment means that prosecutors will need to show intent to
commit murder when they press their case in court. However, Schweit says
that's distinct from motivation, which may or may not be directly
relevant to the case.
"TV and movies have taught us that the motive is the most important thing, but from a prosecution standpoint, it's not."
Schweit also noted that some high-profile assassins have been motivated by the desire to be famous or impress people.
During
Tuesday's Senate hearing, FBI director Patel also said that others are
being investigated for possible involvement in the shooting.
As
of yet, no-one else has been charged in connection with the case and
investigators have not indicated anyone else was involved.
That
has not stopped fevered - and for the most part un-evidenced -
speculation online about alleged motives and large-scale plots.
A
number of right-wing influencers with huge social media followings,
including several who are close to President Trump and Kirk's Turning
Point USA organisation, have alleged that the shooting was the work of a
group or "terror cell" inspired by transgender activism and funded by
left-wing activists.
Trump said this
week he will designate Antifa as a "major terrorist organisation" as
part of his efforts to target the "radical left", following Kirk's
killing. Robinson, the suspect, has not been directly linked to Antifa, a
decentralised, leftist movement that opposes far-right, racist and
fascist groups.
Some
high-profile right-wing podcasters, including Trump's former chief
adviser Steve Bannon, have suggested that the text messages exchanged by
Robinson and his roommate were somehow faked or false, implying - again
without evidence - a broader conspiracy.
At
the same time, a number of left-wing social media users have continued
to claim that Robinson is a Trump supporter or member of a fringe,
far-right group known as "groypers" - who consistently castigated Kirk
for not supporting their white nationalist and anti-Semitic beliefs.
Those claims also lack evidence, and prosecutors and Utah officials have given no indication that far-right groups are involved.
"Everybody's
jumping to conclusions because that's the society we live in," said
Schweit, the former FBI agent. "Everybody wants an answer – and right
now."[SOURCE]
Just your average Zen Baptist, admitting upfront to being a (mostly) reconstructed hillbilly.
If you can't understand the attitude or perspective I come from, it's safe to say that we're from different realities.
If you can't start off the conversation with a respectful question about how/why I came to the particular perspective I did, and then find some way that you can relate to it, then I don't have any time to entertain your issues.
Give respect, get respect.
Hear Together: Roanoke Outside Foundation
-
Roanoke Outside is a nonprofit working to protect outdoor experiences and
build a stronger outdoor community. One of the biggest ways they do that is
thr...
Joe Shields - Brooklyn Bridge
-
Joe Shields - Brooklyn Bridge
Website - http://twoshacks.com.
From: joecartoondotcom
Views: 4343
203 ratings
Time: 03:55 More in Music
