How "fact-checkers" lie

This is one of the most revolting examples of how all those far-left "fact-checkers" twist facts they don't like - even if it means that they have to attack victims of a horrendous crime:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/newsom-christian-murders/

In 2007, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were brutally tortured, raped and murdered by a group of 4 black men and 1 black woman:

Lots of people who hear about this horrendous hate crime might wonder if it actually happened. If they turn to Snopes, they will find a cryptical rating of "partially true" in the only article about the case.

So why would they call it "partially true"? As the Snopes author is forced to admit, the murders occurred as described, the victims were tortured and raped etc. The details are so horrible that I will not repeat them. It's all true. And yes, it was absolutely a racist hate crime - we'll get to that.

Here is the subtle trick they used: instead of simply reporting the facts about the crime and rating it as "TRUE", Snopes instead published some random text that apparently was being shared on social media - a text without any identifiable origin - and then proceeded to nit-pick some details in that specific text to claim that this particular text was only "partially true".

Yes, the rating applies to that random, unidentified text, not the crime itself. But the average person will think: "Well, it was probably not a hate crime and not as awful as they said".

Now regarding the hate-crime classification: anyone hearing all the gory details and circumstances of this crime must immediately conclude that this was most definitely a hate crime. What else could possibly motivate an entire group of 5 adult black people to show such extreme hatred and violence towards a harmless young couple who had done them no wrong? A young couple they had never met before and whose only "fault" was to be white.

Conveniently, the KKK got involved and denounced this hate crime, which then triggered "anti-hate-groups" who cared more about attacking the KKK than about the actual victims of a horrendous hate crime. The victims didn't mattter, because they were of the wrong color.

Snopes and the media reported that the parents of the victims refused to call it a hate crime. What they really said is that they had no connection with the KKK and did not want to be associated with them. Seriously, who wants to be associated with the KKK?

This was re-interpreted by the media as "the KKK said it was a hate crime, the parents said they do not agree with the KKK".

If the parents had so much as stated the obvious - that their children were victims of a hate crime - they would immediately have been branded as "KKK supporters" and the horrible murder of their children would have been represented as "justified retaliation against white supremacists".

So basically, the KKK was used to ensure that an actual anti-white hate crime was not treated as a hate crime ... because "white supremacy" could not possibly be given this "victory".

This is the height of hypocrisy and injustice to the victims. The message was very clear: anti-white hate crimes will never be recognized as such, no matter how horrible they may be.

But bad things happening to black people - even if it is entirely by their own fault and if they had committed serious crimes - will be reported on by the media and the black person(s) involved will automatically be made to look like victims.

Reminder: 90% of all the inter-racial violent crimes between black and white people are black-on-white crimes.

But according to the media, the real problem is "racism by white supremacists against black people".

It's a clown world and the fact-checkers do not care about facts.

Every single fact-checked story about anything even remotely political will have passed through the same filter. Once you've seen it, you cannot unsee it. I picked this story because it was so glaringly obvious, but there are thousands just like it.

You can't trust the "facts-checkers"!