Biden Snubs Victims of BLM Bigot’s Christmas Massacre

CLAY: We are not going to let the attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, disappear from memory. Unlike a lot of people at CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, we’re also not going to blame the vehicle for what it did, considering it was being driven by a man named Darrell Brooks who appeared to have a clear intent to try to kill as many people as possible, potentially.

At least based on his posts on Facebook and other social sites, predicated on the race of his victims, because he was angry with what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse not far away in the Kenosha courtroom. Now, Joe Biden has an opportunity, maybe an obligation as the American president, to travel to this site of this terror attack — six people killed, 50 wounded, many still recovering — and lend the support of the United States in a time of tragedy to the victims of this Waukesha attack. He hasn’t done so. In fact, he’s flown right over the top of Waukesha to go to other places. Jen Psaki was asked by Peter Doocy why is that actually occurring inside of the press briefing. This is what she said.

DOOCY: Why hasn’t the president visited the members of this Christmas parade attack?

PSAKI: Well, I would say first — as you saw the president convey last week — our hearts go out to this community, to the people in Waukesha; that we’ve been in touch, obviously, with officials there and we’re all watching as people are recovering and this is such a difficult time of year for this to happen. It’s difficult anytime.

Obviously, any president going to visit a community requires a lot of assets, requires taking their resources and it’s not something that I have a trip previewed at this point in time. But we remain in touch with local officials and certainly are hearts are with the community as they’ve gone through such a difficult time.

BUCK: Yeah, we’re not all idiots. He’s not going because Biden sees no political the advantage in it. Period. That’s why he’s not going. Obviously, the president of the United States flying over the site, mind you, he’s already in the region. It would not be hard. Pretty sure we have this fancy taxpayer funded plane for him and a pretty large praetorian guard known as the Secret Service to keep him safe.

I’m not concerned about any of that, and neither should he be, right? He could get there easily. Why isn’t he going? They don’t want to draw attention to it. Why don’t they want to draw attention to it? Here’s something. How is it possible, Clay, that no one has even raised — in the Democrat corporate media — motive? You didn’t hear the word.

Is this the first thing! People say, “Oh, Buck, what about what happened in Las Vegas? Everybody was speculating about motive for weeks.” They think that shuts down my argument. No, no, no. My argument is you can’t even talk about motive! There is no motive, apparently, for a mass murderer of elderly people and children in a parade for Christmas.

That’s complete madness. But, you know, with Las Vegas, it was, “Could it be that? Could it be that? Could it be this?” Everybody was getting in on the motive-analysis side of it in the media. No one even talks about it, Clay, because we know what the motive actually is. We’re just are not allowed to say it. Well, we say it, but other people don’t.

CLAY: Well, it was a racial attack, it appears, and Joe Biden didn’t wait for the evidence to come out when it was Kyle Rittenhouse. He branded him a white supremacist and said that his actions were founded in racism. That’s what he said. That’s what he did. That’s what his campaign advertised. So this idea that you can’t show up in Waukesha?

It’s because it’s an inconvenient truth; the facts don’t fit the narrative. If this had been, unfortunately, a crazed white person who had killed a number of minorities, Joe Biden would have been there the day after it happened attending a press conference and demanding a hate crime investigation. Almost no one is willing to raise this as an issue.

We talked about this yesterday, Buck, and Ron DeSantis — after our show aired, I believe — actually came out and said what almost no one else is willing to acknowledge, which is this appears to have been a crime by a crazy person, granted, that was motivated by racial animus. Listen to this.

DESANTIS: They say this was a big accident. You never actually hear the discussion about who committed this, what was the motivation. This was an intentional act. And it seems like, you know, for corporate press, they’re more apt to characterize a parent who goes to a school board meeting to protest bad policies as a domestic terrorist than somebody who intentionally rams an SUV into a crowd of innocent people.

And we’ll see what the actual motivation was. It very well may have been in response to what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse, and you have to wonder if that’s the case, almost surely this guy’s view of Rittenhouse was colored by all these media lies. Let’s just be clear. They are not wanting to cover this Wisconsin thing for what it is. They are not wanting the facts to come out the way they are because the facts do not support their narrative.

BUCK: This gives you a sense of how powerful the apparatus of the left and the Democrat Party really is. This is exactly as I thought it would be. This is playing out as expected. They do this, “We don’t know. Wait ’til the facts come in.” They lock it down. Anyone who strays ahead of what had been the agreed upon facts in the first 24 hours, they attack ruthlessly.

“You’re being reckless! You don’t know what you are saying,” right? So you risk that if you come out and say, “Well, this looks like the following…” So for 48 hours it’s, “Hold on! We don’t know. We don’t know. Wait,” and then after that it’s, ‘Well, it was an SUV that went into a crowd. It was a car. It was a tragedy! It was something that occurred that we’re all very sad about,” and they shift the conversation towards sorrow and grief.

They neutralize discussion about who did this, why did he do it, what does it tell us about the country we live in, what does it tell us about the media coverage of specifically the Rittenhouse trial but more generally race relations in this country, right? What are the broader topics we could have a conversation about in the aftermath of an incident like this? All of that. There’s no national conversation. All of that is shut down. It’s exactly… This is the left-wing playbook when it doesn’t fit the narrative, and that’s what they’ve done.

CLAY: A hundred percent. They memory hole it, and this is significant because one of the big powers of CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, are the facts and the stories that they choose to share with their audience. And you know as well as I do that if this had been a white guy driving a car mowing through a crowd of minorities with the exact same statements on his social media profiles, just changing the race, this would have been a multiday story.

We’d still be talk about it over a week later. Every Republican would be forced to condemn this guy. Everyone would have to acknowledge that white supremacy is a major threat in this country. Yet when the identities are shifted and when it is a black man who is making white people his victims, intentionally driving over them — young kids, older people — in a Christmas parade, we have to pretend that there is no motivation whatsoever for this individual.

Look, if you want to pretend that every individual is responsible for their actions and race doesn’t impact anything, that’s fine with me. But the standards have to be applied evenly in all cases. And we just saw them not applied evenly in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, and we know what would happen in this situation if the races were different.