NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Last Friday, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges against him in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Just two days later, a Black nationalist BLM supporter drove an SUV through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin. It was a slaughter.
Six people were killed, including three grandmothers and an 8-year-old boy. Forty-seven people were injured very badly, many of them children. Here’s one witnesses description of the scene:
WITNESS: We were sitting, my daughter was sitting at my feet and I was standing above her and what I saw was a red SUV run over a gentleman, I think it was a gentleman in a costume, and he was his body was trampled by both the front and the back wheels.
Police say the man who did this is a career criminal called Darrell Brooks. As of tonight, Brooks has not publicly explained why he committed mass murder. Instead, the media and local authorities have decided to speak for him, and the main thing they want you to know is that these killings had absolutely nothing to do with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict just two days before. Nothing whatsoever. The timing is just one of those amazing coincidences.
“There is no evidence that this is a terrorist incident,” announced Waukesha’s chief of police. But if indiscriminately murdering women and children at a Christmas parade isn’t terrorism, then what exactly is it?
Well, it’s a vehicular mishap. Here’s how Twitter’s in-house news team described it. “Five people dead and more than 40 injured after car drives through parade.” Car. It’s the fault of the red SUV.
Other news organizations had another explanation handy. It turns out they told us that Brooks was fleeing from a knife fight. And the implication, of course, was that he got spooked and drove through the parade by accident. You know, as you do. Then MSNBC took this theory a step further and suggested the police had somehow goaded Darrell Brooks into driving into people by firing a gun at him.
JIM CAVANAUGH, FORMER ATF: The report from NBC is that maybe he was in a knife fight or a stabbing. I’ve been to stabbings and I’m telling you they’re very bloody events. The perps or participants often have blood all over them – even if it’s coming from a victim they stabbed. Or they may get cut themselves if it’s a knife fight. They often run with the bloody knife. So, this guy might have been in the car with a bloody knife and blood all over him. He saw the police barricade at the parade route and busted through it. The officer fired and then he was going to do anything he, or they, to get away when he ran over these band members is just an act of really cold-blooded murder.
So Brooks was doing whatever he could to get away from the police so effectively, it’s the cop’s fault. Except no, that’s not what happened. Eyewitnesses, many eyewitnesses described Brooks zigzagging down the street trying to murder as many innocent people as he could. These killings were absolutely intentional. And no, Brooks was not being chased by the police. That’s a lie. So much for that theory.
So the question remains, why did Darrell Brooks commit mass murder in Waukesha? The media don’t seem interested in finding out, not even a little bit. So they’ve decided to ignore the story completely. And they are.
Subpoenas to Roger Stone from some fake congressional committee are apparently more important than six deaths. Like the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, as far as the national media are concerned, it’s simply not happening.
The more we learn about Darrell Brooks, the easier it is to understand why the media don’t want to talk about him. Brooks’ social media feeds are full of racist and Black nationalist propaganda. In one of his rap songs, he includes lines from Malcolm X justifying race-hate against Whites. He posted a picture of a fruit bowl arranged to display the letters BLM with a raised fist. And not insignificantly, Brooks also criticized the jury’s verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
On Facebook, One BLM activist was happy to connect the dots here. He describes Brooks’ mass murder as retaliation for the Rittenhouse acquittal watch.
BLM ACTIVIST VAUM MAYES: They have someone in custody. We may have to wait and see what they say, why this happened. It sounds like it’s possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade. … The initial person that reached out to me said this has to do with the verdict.
This has to do with the verdict. That’s the obvious conclusion. Is it true? Again, we have not confirmed it, but we can be absolutely certain that the national media will spend zero time trying to find out. Why? Because they’re implicated.
News organizations spent more than a year telling us that a case that had precisely nothing to do with race was somehow a referendum on the civil rights of Black people and the rise of White supremacy. So if it turns out those lies, and they are lies, got six people murdered, they’ll probably be the last to tell us that.
We do know that Darrell Brooks never should have been on the street in the first place, he was a thoroughly loathsome person. Want evidence? Well, he bragged about pimping his 16-year-old girlfriend.
BROOKS: Now all of a sudden I’m a pedophile? Let me explain that. Ten years ago in 2006, I caught a case with my oldest daughter’s mama. Yes. My baby mama. … I didn’t know the bitch was 16 at the time. She gave a statement to the police, yea she was hoein’ and I was pimpin’ and that she was 16, and I didn’t know that, OK.
Yeah. So for some reason, this guy has spent most of his life free. A few weeks ago, probably not surprisingly, he was charged with punching the mother of his latest child in the face and then running her over with his car, so he should have been in jail for that. But the Milwaukee County district attorney, a radical called John Chisholm, released Brooks on $1,000 bail.
So $1,000 for beating and running over a woman. Why? Well, because John Chisholm believes that bail is racist. A few years ago, Chisholm acknowledged that letting violent criminals out of jail was certain to cost innocent lives. But, he explained, it’s still worth it, because equity.
“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, Who’s going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It is guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”
In other words, the deaths of innocents, old ladies, small children are a small price to pay because the principle of equity is so beautiful and so important. That is a diseased way of thinking. It’s how cult leaders and dictators think. It is not a western worldview, but suddenly it’s a mainstream position within the Democratic Party.
Jonathan Swan of Axios tried to get Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan to explain what would happen if we closed all federal prisons in this country, as she is demanding.
SWAN: To what extent have you wrestled with any potential downside of releasing into society every single person who’s currently in a federal person?
TLAIB: Yeah again, I think everyone’s like, oh my god, we’re going to just release everybody.
SWAN: But that’s what the bill says.
TLAIB: Yeah, but did you see how many people are mentally ill in prison right now?
SWAN: No I know, but the act you endorsed actually says release everyone in 10 years.
TLAIB: Yeah in 10 years, but think about it who we’re releasing.
SWAN: But they were like human traffickers, child sex offenders.
TLAIB: No, I know.
SWAN: So are you saying you don’t actually support that?
TLAIB: No I endorse the Breath Act.
SWAN: Your proposal is so sweeping it does release everyone and what I’m trying to say to you.
TLAIB: Within 10 years and obviously there’s a process of how can we get away from mass incarceration and move towards care first.
Totally unbothered. Human traffickers? Yeah. Rashida Tlaib doesn’t care. In the end, she refused to give Swan a single example of any criminal, no matter how violent or how dangerous, who ought to remain behind bars, not one.
So what would happen if we did this if we actually emptied the prisons? As Democrats are demanding, we’re getting a taste of the consequences right now by watching what’s happening in the San Francisco Bay Area.
There’s nothing equitable about what’s happening there. It’s theft, big picture, it’s anarchy, it’s violent chaos in which the weak will always suffer the most. Why do we have civilization in the first place? Precisely to prevent that. So you’ve got to wonder why they’re encouraging it.
This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson’s opening commentary on the November 23, 2021 edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”