Another “Hate-Crime” Accusation Crumbles | James J. Eaton

PALESTINIAN SHOOTER – VERMONT 

NARRATIVE TIME:

Jason Eaton pleaded not guilty today to attempted murder charges for allegedly shooting three college students of Palestinian descent in Vermont. Authorities have not charged Eaton with a hate crime but police say they are still investigating. NBC News’ Stephanie Gosk reports.

So, that is the narrative. An Islamophobic attack. But Eaton has not yet been charged with a hate crime. FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE may have a clue as to why… but first, they lay out the narrative well:

When three Arab Muslim students were shot and wounded in Burlington, Vermont, politicians and the media immediately hyped it as the ‘Islamophobic Crime of the Century’.

President Biden issued a statement declaring that “there is absolutely no place for violence or hate in America.” Vice President Kamala Harris’ statement bemoaned that “far too many people live with the fear that they could be targeted and attacked based on their beliefs or who they are”. The three Muslim men identified as ‘Palestinian’, two of them were wearing keffiyehs and Kamala, like many other leftists, was implying that the shooter was ‘anti-Palestinian’.

“The idea that three young men walking down the street get shot, perhaps because of no other reason than they are Palestinian, is unspeakable,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said. ”But I gotta tell you, this is not just a local phenomenon, this is happening all over the country.”

Then he blasted Israel.

“I’m heartbroken by yesterday’s senseless shooting of three Palestinian-American students visiting Burlington. We do not tolerate hate or Islamophobia in Vermont,” Sen Peter Welch tweeted.

“I do want to be clear that there is no question this was a hateful act,” Sarah George, the local State’s Attorney, claimed without evidence.

“In this charged moment, no one can look at this incident and not suspect that it may have been a hate-motivated crime,” Burlington Police Chief Jon Murad argued.

Anti-Israel groups convened a rally calling for the destruction of Israel.

“I stand here to stand with oppressed people who now fear for their lives just walking down the street here in Burlington,” Vermont Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman told the hateful mob.

A speaker at the hate rally with the antisemitic University of Vermont affiliate of Students for Justice in Palestine blamed the shootings on Jews, calling them the “shameless monsters who enabled this” and denouncing “a crime of unspeakable racist hatred, a crime borne out of white supremacy, out of fascist, genocidal malice, a crime borne out of Zionism.”

TRUTH TIME:

Woah. This guy must be a Right Wing Domestic Terrorist. But as I have argued in the past, much of this is a marriage between “Leftist ideals.” So even if he was truly a White Supremacist, that would mean I assume he is a lefty. As I note at the end of my point #3 discussing “Are Racists Voting for Republicans en masse?”

Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:

  • They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).

So, back to FRONT PAGE MAG:

All of these claims, along with many others around the shootings, were based on lies.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee falsely claimed that “a man shouted and harassed the victims, then proceeded to shoot them. We have reason to believe this shooting occurred because the victims are Arab.”

In reality, they had been shot by a local resident outside his house who did not say a word.

The three Muslim men were returning home from a party on Saturday night when James J. Eaton, a local resident with a history of mental instability, stumbled out of a white clapboard house on the residential street and without a word fired four shots at the three men.

Eaton had been described as “that hippie guy” and “progressive”, an organic farmer who had posted a meme with a definition of “Amerika” that called it “the worst sense of the United States, ie imperialism, corruption and the global exportation of American culture.”

He appeared to be a Biden supporter

Media outlets, anti-Israel activists and politicians attributed the shootings to the Hamas war. Everyone from Biden and Kamala on down emphasized the “Palestinian” identities of those shot and implied that Eaton had attacked them because he was opposed to the ‘Palestinian’ cause.

In reality, Eaton supported Hamas.

On December 6, Seven Days, a local news outlet known for breaking stories about local politics, revealed that Eaton had tweeted, “the notion that Hamas is ‘evil’ for defending their state from occupation is absurd. They are owed a state. Pay up.”

Responding to an article about a proposed ceasefire, he wrote, “What if someone occupied your country? Wouldn’t you fight them?”

Local politicians were aware of this which is why in December a Burlington City Council resolution from Councilman Ali Dieng, an African Muslim immigrant currently running for mayor, trying to tie the shootings to an attack on Israel failed, and so did a resolution pushing the false claim that the students had been targeted because of their identity.

The latest Islamophobia hoax had fallen apart in Vermont, but still lingered nationally….

Bottom Line?

  • The suspect, James Eaton, is “mentally unstable, left-leaning, opposed to America and supportive of Islamic terrorists. He was neither Jewish nor pro-Israel” and had “publicly stated his support for Hamas.”

So @MichaelGreenspa brought up the New Mexico Muslim killings. He links to WIKIPEDIA, which is a decent article — but for how long?

NEW MEXICO MUSLIM KILLINGS

NARRATIVE TIME:

Let us get a bit of “narrative” and then truth from JIHAD WATCH:

“I am angered and saddened by the horrific killings of four Muslim men in Albuquerque,” Joe Biden had tweeted. “While we await a full investigation, my prayers are with the victims’ families, and my administration stands strongly with the Muslim community. These hateful attacks have no place in America.”

“The targeted killings of Muslim residents of Albuquerque is deeply angering and wholly intolerable,” Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham tweeted. “We will continue to do everything we can to support to the Muslim community of Albuquerque and greater New Mexico during this difficult time. You are New Mexicans, you are welcomed here, and we stand with you.”

CAIR offered a $10,000 reward for the perpetrator of the “hateful shooting spree” and demanded that Biden make it his responsibility to “protect Albuquerque Muslims from further harm”. But when the perpetrator turned out to be a fellow Sunni Muslim, CAIR is no longer describing his actions as “hateful”, but “deranged”. Soon he’ll be dismissed as mentally ill.

TRUTH TIME:

E X C E P T. . . .

The alleged perpetrator, Muhammad Syed, a Sunni Muslim refugee from Afghanistan, was reportedly angry at his daughter’s marriage to a Shiite Muslim.

And took it out on some local Shiite Muslims in Albuquerque which is now the new Afghanistan.

So it was a – a – a – “hate-crime,” one imported to our shores. It was the hate of Sunni Muslims towards Shiite Muslims. NPR expresses the idea of “shock.”

Syed is well-known to the Muslim community in Albuquerque, multiple people told NPR. He regularly came to the same mosque that the victims had attended.

“For months, this guy was praying next to other members of the community as if everything was normal,” Aggad said. “It shocks you.”

Syed has been charged in two of the four deaths, and police say he is the primary suspect in the other two killings. He was arrested during a traffic stop more than 100 miles from Albuquerque, authorities said Tuesday.

In a conversation with officers, Syed denied connection to the shootings. According to the criminal complaint, a gun recovered from his home matched bullet casings found at the crime scenes.

However, it may be a shock to those raised in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West…. not to those born into Muslim/Middle-East countries and traditions. This is the norm.

“SHOCK” – LOL.

Enumerated Rights (1st Amendment) vs. `Special Rights`

This is with a h/t to Pastor Matt, and it is found at Alliance Defending Freedom:

Citizenship vs. Enumerated Rights

…one of the justices wrote that the photographer and her husband, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”

  • Description:  In 2006, Vanessa Willock asked Elaine Huguenin—co-owner with her husband, Jonathan, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque—to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that Willock and another woman wanted to hold in the town of Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico. Huguenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony, which Willock asked Huguenin to help her “celebrate.” Willock found another photographer for her ceremony, but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” The commission held a one-day trial in January 2008 and then issued an order several months later finding that Elane Photography engaged in “sexual orientation” discrimination prohibited under state law. The commission ordered Elane Photography to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the two women who filed the complaint. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys took the case to the New Mexico court system to appeal the commission’s ruling. The state’s Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s ruling, and Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys appealed it to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

SANTA FE, N.M. — The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday against a photographer who declined to use her artistic expression to communicate the story of a same-sex ceremony. In a concurrence accompanying the opinion, one of the justices wrote that the photographer and her husband, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”

“The idea that free people can be ‘compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives’ as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” said Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom. We are considering our next steps, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong.”

A Rasmussen poll last month found that “If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American adults believe he has the right to say no.”

…read more…

The “price of citizenship” is enumerated well in the Constitution, and in the First Amendment! Does this justice (well, many today, even the President) think they (he or she) are above the law of the land? Apparently.

HotAir makes the point that this seems a bit unfair:

….How about when Hooters refuses to serve anyone who is a Mayor who is a serial sexually inappropriate actor? How do eateries refuse service to people with no shirt or no shoes if it’s not illegal to go barefoot or without a top? (For men, at least.) For a less silly example, how about when many cemeteries refused to bury the body of the Boston Marathon bomber? Funeral homes tend to frequently be smaller, family run operations just like photography studios, often run out of people’s homes. Could they be sued for refusing service? If so, I never heard of anyone suggesting it. But in this case, because the photographer turned down the job for a gay wedding, they have now lost in court at every level and will pay for it in cash.

This may be the wrong side of the law here, but I’m left pondering one comment I saw on Twitter shortly after this news came out.

There is a simple answer to the “Tweet” above: it’s not about photos, it’s about forcing a view onto the populace by undermining both the Constitution and religion (the Judeo-Christian ethic).