Two church shootings, two killers, endless media double standards



Two church shootings, a decade apart, received strikingly different treatment from America’s corporate media. The first occurred in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. The second took place in Minneapolis just last week.

On June 18, 2015, CBS News reported:

A white man opened fire in a historic black church, in Charleston, South Carolina, the night of June 17, 2015, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer meeting. The suspect, Dylann Roof, was arrested in North Carolina and extradited to South Carolina June 18, 2015, for what authorities are calling a hate crime.

On June 28, 2025, CBS News reported:

Two young children were killed and 18 others were injured in a shooting during a Catholic Mass packed with young students in south Minneapolis Wednesday morning. The shooter is also dead.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the shooting triggered a massive law enforcement response to Annunciation Catholic Church at West 54th Street between Harriet and Garfield avenues around 8:30 a.m. The church is connected to a school building.

The shooter approached from the outside of the building and fired a rifle through the church windows toward children and worshippers. The shooter also used a shotgun and a pistol that he had legally purchased ‘recently,’ O’Hara said.

Both reports were written one day after the massacres. Both shooters were identified by that point. Yet the second account omitted key information about the shooter.

Establishment media needs to look at the facts — and report them. While they do, they should also look in the mirror.

What a shock when Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey used a press conference on the very day of the church massacre to pivot from murdered children to a lecture on transgender rights and gun control.

“I have heard about a whole lot of hate that’s being directed at our trans community,” Frey told reporters at an afternoon briefing.

He went on:

Anybody who is using this ... as an opportunity to villainize our trans community, or any other community out there, has lost their sense of common humanity. We should not be operating out of a place of hate for anyone.

In truth, no one should be shocked by Frey’s diversion. This is the same mayor who let Minneapolis burn in 2020, which included the torching of a police station. His record of weakness is already clear.

And this year, he’s locked in a tough re-election fight against Omar Fateh, a bona fide democratic socialist. To survive, Frey is racing leftward, stooping to whatever level he thinks will protect his job.

The real revelation from his comments wasn’t his tired blame-shifting but his admission that the shooter identified as transgender — a fact establishment media has rushed to bury.

The killer, born Robert Westman, legally changed his name to Robin Westman in January 2020 at age 17. The petition states that he “identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.”

Such details were not hidden for anyone willing to look. Hours before the massacre, Westman posted videos that exposed both his planning and his hatred.

In one, he flipped through pages of a handwritten manifesto laying out why he chose Annunciation — the Catholic church and school he had graduated from in 2017:

I am feeling good about Annunciation. It seems like a good combo of easy attack form and devastating tragedy and I want to do more research. I have concerns about finding a large enough group. I want to avoid any parents, but pre and post school drop off.

In another, Westman showed off his arsenal. His gun magazines bore hand-scrawled taunts, including the chilling phrase: “Where is your God?”

Basic facts become optional

Ten years ago, coverage of Charleston leaned heavily on words like “white” and “white supremacist.” Reporters stressed Dylann Roof’s race from the outset, and his racist motivations were treated as central to the story. That was fair. His ideology mattered, and his identity explained why he targeted a black church.

But why is the same standard not applied today?

RELATED: If ‘words are violence,’ why won’t the left own theirs?

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Westman was transgender. Court filings documented his legal name change to “Robin” and the reasons behind it. His own videos revealed a deeply disturbed mind, with specific plans to attack Annunciation and taunts of his victims scrawled on his weapons. These are facts. They belong in basic reporting. Including them doesn’t equate “transgender” with “deranged” any more than “white” equates to “white supremacist.”

Yet the difference in coverage is glaring. In Charleston, identity was headline news. In Minneapolis, it was buried. Everyone knows why. Westman’s story doesn’t serve the establishment narrative, so the press ignored it.

A reckoning for mainstream media

Journalism once prided itself on covering the unexpected — the classic “man bites dog.” That’s over. News today is about reinforcing narratives, not reporting facts.

Americans see through it. They know why trust in media sits at historic lows. They see newspapers hemorrhaging readers, network news losing viewers, and MSNBC shrinking into a dumb rebrand. The bias is obvious, the omission blatant, and the public is done playing along.

People usually know when they’re being lied to. They also know that half-truths amount to half-lies at best. The press pushed the Russia hoax with glee. They buried Hunter Biden’s laptop. They shielded the public from Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline.

The left depends on this cocoon. It shelters them from the clash between their mistaken beliefs and stubborn reality. And the establishment media — blind to their own collapse in credibility — gladly supply the insulation.

In Minneapolis, the slaughter of Catholic schoolchildren should have shattered the narrative. Instead, the media treated it like an inconvenience. They will glance at it briefly before memory-holing what doesn’t fit.

If they have any integrity left, they’ll face the facts — and face themselves. Because the real scandal isn’t just what they cover. It’s what they refuse to see.

Austin Metcalf’s death sparks outrage — and opportunism



The death of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas, is every parent’s nightmare. The circumstances make the loss even more devastating. Metcalf, a student at Memorial High School, was stabbed in the chest by another teen, Karmelo Anthony, after a brief argument.

Anthony, a student at Centennial High School, was reportedly sitting under the tent reserved for Memorial High. A witness told police that Metcalf asked Anthony to move. When Anthony refused, Metcalf reportedly grabbed him. At that point, according to the witness, Anthony pulled out a knife, stabbed Metcalf once in the chest, and fled the scene.

The people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom.

Police later arrested Anthony and charged him with first-degree murder. His bail was set at $1 million.

Austin’s twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, held him during his final moments, making the situation even more tragic.

As often happens — especially online — the story of Austin Metcalf’s death quickly shifted from a tragedy about a young life lost and a grieving family to a debate about race.

Metcalf was white. The accused, Karmelo Anthony, is black. Social media users, particularly on X, widely claimed that the case would have drawn national headlines and sparked protests if their races were reversed.

But the facts don’t support claims of media silence. NBC News, ABC News, and Fox News all covered the incident.

Still, accusations of selective coverage illustrate a broader frustration with “outrage inequity” — the notion that moral outrage and condemnation often hinge on the racial identities of both the victim and the accused. The primary indication of this phenomenon is the uneven application of moral indignation and condemnation based on particular victim-perpetrator color combinations.

Critics argue that progressives frequently engage in this pattern, particularly when racially motivated hate crimes make headlines.

In 2022, for example, Payton Gendron drove three hours to a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, where he fatally shot 10 black people. That attack allowed liberal commentators to reinforce a familiar narrative: White violence against black Americans stems from “whiteness” and “white supremacy.”

Progressives often cite slavery, Jim Crow-era lynchings, and even verbal altercations between people of different races as proof of a persistent hatred embedded in white identity.

Rise of the ‘woke right’

A growing number of conservatives use incidents like Austin Metcalf’s killing to support their preferred narratives. They see Karmelo Anthony’s actions as a reflection of a much broader pathology among blacks and cite violent crime statistics to prove their point.

Some attribute these outcomes to culture, specifically the breakdown of the nuclear family and fatherlessness. Others believe the dysfunction is a matter of blood and bone, citing lower IQ scores and genetics as the main culprit.

The increasing prevalence of this rhetoric among conservatives is a microcosm of a much bigger phenomenon: the rise of the race-conscious right. Some people use “woke right” to describe this ascendant ideology, but the specific terminology is less important than the reality it describes.

The political left is notorious for making everything about race. Any incident that involves a white person doing something negative to a black person is strained through a racial prism. Police shootings and incarceration statistics are the clearest examples. Disparities in education outcomes and household income are another.

The left’s overarching narrative is that black people in America face unique obstacles because our institutions are infected with anti-black racism. No amount of evidence to the contrary moves them from that position.

Conservatives historically responded to this narrative by promoting “colorblindness,” treating people as individuals, cautioning blacks to resist self-pity, and encouraging them to embrace personal responsibility. In fact, the right regularly chastises liberals for painting police with a broad brush based on the actions of a few “bad apples.” Their message was always clear and consistent: Don’t engage in hasty judgments or sweeping generalizations that tempt you into seeing entire groups as villains or yourself as a victim.

Animus without evidence

That is no longer the case, and the parallels between the race-obsessed left and right are becoming increasingly clear.

One is assuming racial animus is at play — often without sufficient evidence — when you feel attacked by public institutions. For instance, activists on the left saw George Floyd as the living embodiment of the historical oppression black men have faced in America at the hands of racist police. That idea persists to this day, even though prosecutors stated there was no evidence Derek Chauvin’s actions were racially motivated.

The right’s rhetoric during much of Daniel Penny’s criminal trial made it clear that for some, he was the embodiment of the current persecution of white males in American society. It wasn’t just that Penny was being punished for standing up to a mentally ill homeless man. They believed that Penny was being prosecuted because the black District Attorney Alvin Bragg was bent on weaponizing the justice system against a straight white male in New York City.

Another example of conservative race-consciousness is the tendency to individualize in-group misdeeds while collectivizing the sins of out-groups. This explains why conservative commentators would never think to insert a racial descriptor when discussing teachers who have sex with students, even though it feels like every week brings another incident involving white women engaging in inappropriate conduct with teens.

Likewise, for all their time spent fighting against trans ideology, influencers on the right don’t make a habit of describing its most vocal proponents in racial terms. White abusers and perverts only have to answer for their own behavior, while black people who misbehave in public are seen as representatives of a larger group.

Both sides also make a habit of turning isolated tragedies into existential crises. Progressive pundits stoking the flames of race explain why a black man living in Brooklyn comes to feel “white supremacists” are the real threat to his life even though every shooter in his neighborhood shares his complexion. Likewise, conservatives who live in all-white neighborhoods repost old videos of black criminals halfway across the country with captions claiming their children are under attack.

From Robin DiAngelo to David Duke

Even the quick expressions of forgiveness from Austin Metcalf’s father were ridiculed by some conservatives online. This mirrors the frustration black commentators expressed after family members of Dylann Roof’s victims forgave him two days after he shot nine black churchgoers at a church in South Carolina.

One of the worst parts about the rise in right-wing race consciousness is that it was completely predictable. Progressives spent years arguing that white people are the cause of all the country’s problems. Pundits who love to lecture conservatives about embracing Ibram X. Kendi-style “antiracism” regularly said the vilest things on TV about white people. Over the past few decades, the left went from fighting against racism to publicly waging war against “whiteness.”

The fact that most of the people running the institutions — from universities to Fortune 500 companies — are white doesn’t lessen the damage. Only a complete fool would think you can demonize the largest ethnic group in your country without some type of blowback.

Unfortunately, the people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom. Not only do they reduce Americans down to their immutable traits, but they also create the perfect breeding ground for extremist views. Simply put, when you “sow” Robin DiAngelo, you will “reap” David Duke. This is not unique to white people. Rejection of moderation almost always leads to radicalism.

It’s not entirely clear where we go from here as a nation, but I wish both liberals and conservatives alike would turn down the racial rhetoric. This is one reason Austin Metcalf’s father pleaded with people not to make his son’s death about race or politics. Through his grief, he intuitively understands that seeing victims of crime as pieces to be moved around a cultural chessboard is a sign of a sick society that places a higher value on political narratives than on preserving life. This applies equally to the left and right.

Murder is wrong because every person is made in the image of God. It shouldn’t be hard for pundits on either side of the aisle to say.

Biden’s clemency play panders to his woke base, snubbing justice



Joe Biden, or more accurately his handlers, decided to commute the sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row prisoners. This prompted Donald Trump to remark, “It makes no sense.” While Biden’s actions were indeed contemptible, they made great strategic sense for Democrats aiming to satisfy their core constituency.

The reasoning behind Biden’s decision had little to do with the partisan bromides served up by Democratic commentators like Jessica Tarlov, who frequently appears on Fox News. Tarlov claimed Biden was morally outraged by capital punishment and felt compelled to act before leaving office. Another Fox News contributor suggested that Biden, a devout Catholic, was influenced by the pope’s homilies on the sanctity of life.

It’s unclear why murderers who raped, tortured, and killed young girls were not also committing 'hate crimes.'

These explanations are transparent nonsense. Biden’s half-century career in politics flatly contradicts such claims. Unlike the pope, Biden has fanatically supported abortion, including the destruction of late-term fetuses — aka empirical human beings. His crusade for the sanctity of life stops well short of his frantic efforts to please the feminist zealots who vote overwhelmingly for his party.

During his tenure in the Senate, Biden had no qualms about supporting capital punishment. In the 1990s, he championed a crime bill that included the death penalty, back when Democrats could still publicly endorse such measures. His stance shifted only after he began courting figures like Ayanna Pressley and other prominent voices from the progressive left.

Biden’s current stance on capital punishment does not reflect a long-standing, principled defense of life. Instead, it appears to be a calculated move to appease his party’s leftist base, which often links capital punishment to systemic racism and anti-black discrimination. The handmaiden media’s portrayal of Biden as a lifelong opponent of the death penalty is blatantly misleading. He only adopted this position while campaigning for president in 2020, by which time he was trying to align with his party’s increasingly radicalized base.

One pressing question is why Biden commuted the sentences of only 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates. The media has suggested that the remaining three prisoners committed crimes more heinous than the others, despite the fact that most of the 37 were also convicted of horrific, sadistic murders. If Biden truly opposes capital punishment on principle, as his defenders insist, why would he make those three exceptions? A consistent opponent of what he considers cruel punishment would presumably have commuted the sentences of everyone on death row.

This distinction lacks any moral justification but clearly serves a political purpose. Not all commutations carried the same value for the Democratic Party. Those excluded from commutation reportedly engaged in acts of terrorism or committed “hate crimes.” Among them are Robert Bowers, a white nationalist who in 2018 killed 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh; Dylann Roof, who in 2015 murdered nine black parishioners during a Bible study in Charleston, South Carolina; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a Chechen responsible for the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured 264 others. All remain on death row.

Pardon me for doubting the reasons that Biden’s spokespersons gave for these exceptions. It’s unclear why murderers who raped, tortured, and killed young girls were not also committing “hate crimes.” While the Boston Marathon bombing might fit the definition of terrorism, the actions of Bowers and Roof are arguably no worse than those of some individuals whose sentences were commuted.

Allow me to suspect the worst about Biden’s exceptions in handing out commutations. Although the crimes of those who were spared may be at least as chilling and in some cases more shocking than those of Roof and Bowers, they didn’t affect to the same degree the Democrats’ attempt to hold on to certain demographics. Those crimes were committed against Hispanics or other groups that no longer count as secure Democratic constituencies. Roof’s crimes were committed against blacks, a group that still votes overwhelmingly for Biden’s party. Fifteen of the 37 criminals commuted are black.

The Jewish vote may not be as safely Democratic as it was in the past, but the tony liberal congregation in a Pittsburgh suburb targeted by Bowers is presumably heavily Democratic and includes generous contributors to Biden’s party. If the victims were politically conservative Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn, one wonders whether the killer would have been left on death row.

Needless to say, all the crimes committed by the inmates on death row are loathsome, yet some of these acts have been quite arbitrarily rated as “hate crimes” while others have not. We are justified, therefore, in asking why some abominations have been treated differently from others. Like Biden’s attempted forgiveness of college student loans, I’m led to believe that this tasteless stunt was driven by narrow Democratic Party interest, nothing else.