Dangerous rhetoric and narratives, when repeated over and over, have an impact on fragile individuals — and it’s completely possible that anti-conservative scare tactics played a role in Sunday’s shocking church shooting.

The left has repeatedly accused conservative culture and commentary of being some sort of “dog whistle” for the unhinged.

There are numerous examples of this claim: The Gabby Giffords shooting was encouraged by “target” icons on an unrelated flier, liberals falsely reported. Donald Trump is somehow enabling white supremacists and secretly giving signals to the KKK, or so the accusation goes — never mind that the Klan is historically Democrat.

Now, after years of finger-pointing at conservatives, the liberal media wants to pretend that the influence of narratives isn’t a two-way street.

In reality, they themselves have been peddling blatantly anti-Christian, anti-white, and anti-conservative propaganda for years — and if people are as easily influenced as liberals claim, militant screwballs like the Texas shooter are clearly able to be motivated by those leftist scare tactics.

TRENDING: Scientists on Advanced Project Accidentally Provide Evidence Atheism Is Wrong

Exhibit A: The Huffington Post. This outlet has long been the media darling among liberals, but a glance at the news magazine’s recent headlines shows exactly how appalling its anti-conservative fear mongering has become.

On Sunday, a lone gunman in Texas specifically targeted a mostly white Christian church. The county is strongly pro-Trump. The shooters social media pages highly suggest that he was an atheist who had a disdain for religious conservatives. Do you think left-wing narratives could have influenced him?

Huffington Post, August 2017: “Is The White Church The AntiChrist?”

Article summary: White church-goers are evil racists and a white congregation is the closest thing to the Antichrist that currently exists.

Huffington Post, June 2017: “Texas Gives The Green Light to Racial Profiling”

Article summary: Texans support Jim Crow laws, hate people of color, and are racist.

Huffington Post, June 2017: “White People: Which Side Are You On?”

Article summary: White people are significantly racist, and must be stopped. Trump is a neo-Nazi. We must be “anti-racist,” pick sides and fight against “white supremacists,” who voted for Trump.

RELATED: Alarming Death Toll Makes Texas Shooting Deadliest Ever in a House of Worship

Huffington Post, March 2017: “Anti-Atheist Terrorism: A New Threat”

Article summary: Atheists are literally under attack around the world. We need “freedom from religion,” and religious people are the enemy.

Take all of these fear-mongering articles — and countless others like them — and put them together. Suppose for a moment that a person truly believed them and saw them as a call to action.

“Conservative Christians are the enemy. Texas is a cesspool of racism. It’s atheists versus the church — now pick a side and take dramatic action to stop them before it’s too late!”

These far-left talking points are meant to be taken seriously… otherwise, why publish them? What is the point of breathlessly shrieking that white churchgoing Trump voters are the enemy unless rags like HuffPost truly believe it?

Impressionable and unhinged readers believed it, too. It’s an age-old tactic: Paint your opponents as inhuman “others” who must be destroyed, and then stand back as your followers wreak havoc.

So far this year, conservatives have been targeted and shot in Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, and now near San Antonio, Texas.

Blame lies with the finger that pulled the trigger… but it’s time to face the fact that alarmist left-wing propaganda and fear mongering has consequences.

Please press “Share on Facebook” to help spread this article on social media!

Do you believe anti-right narratives are influencing people? Scroll down to comment below!

Less than a week ago, Democrats eviscerated President Trump for “politicizing” the New York City truck attack. That was an attack with a clear cause (Islamic terrorism) and clear solutions (increased monitoring of internal threats, increased vetting of immigrants from countries with known terrorism issues, and increased military action against terrorist groups overseas).

On Sunday, at least 26 worshipers were killed at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. There was no clear cause for the shooting, at least as of Sunday night, and — unlike what Democrats might like to think — no clear solutions to prevent it.

In fact, as of the early hours of Monday morning, we didn’t even have all the facts with regard to alleged shooter Devin Patrick Kelley and his background or how he was stopped, although early reports did credit an armed resident with chasing the 26-year-old shooter off, according to Fox News.

That didn’t stop former President Barack Obama from “politicizing” the incident — you know, that thing Democrats suddenly think is very, very bad — on Twitter.

“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote Sunday night.

TRENDING: McCain Blasts US in Speech to Naval Academy, “No More America First”

“May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”

We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover…

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 6, 2017

May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 6, 2017

There’s plenty of weasel-room in there for Obama to say he was just suggesting that it was time to “ask what concrete steps” we could take, so let’s unpack this one for all of its hypocrisy.

We’ll focus on the second tweet, since there’s nothing prima facie offensive about it — at least not without the second tweet, which makes it clear he’s using bodies not yet cold in the morgue to appeal to America’s emotions.

Obama talks about “concrete steps.” In his world, this means legislation. Unfortunately, reactive legislation (especially involving firearms) has a history of ending up badly. Furthermore, given an almost total paucity of facts, we don’t know there’s a single piece of legislation that could have stopped Sunday’s massacre.

That fact goes unsurprisingly unmentioned by the president. I’m sure he meant to mention it, but Twitter being what it is, it’s hard to pack everything into 140 characters and something had to go.

It’s the final sentence that’s the pièce de résistance of weasel-wording: according to Obama, the measures should be meant to “reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”

RELATED: Obama Hid Nearly Half a Million Docs About Bin Laden Raid to Ensure Election

Now, nobody wants more violence. (Or, well, nobody sane wants more violence.) However, Obama then sneaks in a causal link — it’s the “weaponry in our midst” that causes the violence and therefore must be reduced.

He provides no evidence for this, probably because there isn’t a whole lot of it. In fact, if Barack Obama was in the habit of reading his own FBI’s reports on crime, he would have found that the “assault weapons” so often scapegoated in the aftermath of tragedies like this kill less people than knives or even hands.

This is the reason why conservatives get weary of Democrats politicizing shootings. They do so usually without the benefit of facts, using specious logic that could be debunked if they looked at any of the pertinent statistics and studies that have been compiled.

That’s the difference between “politicizing” an Islamist terror attack and politicizing a mass shooting. One is simply an issue of stating facts too many people would wish to ignore. The other involves ignoring the facts and instead placing the blame on our constitutional rights.

H/T The Daily Caller

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on former President Obama’s tweets.

Do you think Obama was politicizing tragedy? Scroll down to comment below!

The “good guy with a gun” who reportedly shot and wounded the alleged gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday has been named in media reports as Stephen Willeford, 55, a local plumber.

The Daily Mail reports that a local resident claims Willeford managed to shoot the alleged gunman, Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, between the plates of the body armor that he was wearing. Willeford is described as a plumber and motorcycle enthusiast with no military experience but with excellent aim.

According to an eyewitness interviewed by KENS 5, Willeford stopped the gunman by firing at him with his own rifle from outside the church, then by pursuing him afterwards:

Our neighbor, he’s a very good guy, a very big Christian, he’s the nicest man on the planet, he’ll do anything for anyone around here. We’ve known him for years. He’s childhood friends with my dad. He … came with his [gun], and he took cover behind a car, and he shot the guy, I’m not sure if it was inside the church or the guy was coming out, but if it wasn’t for him, the guy wouldn’t have stopped. And then that’s when the guy got in his vehicle and drove off. And our friend shot through the window at him, trying to get him again, and then he apparently crashed down the road.

He added: “If it wasn’t for our friend … there might have been more lives lost.”

Local law enforcement officials reported that the gunman dropped his weapon after being shot at by the “local citizen,” i.e. Willeford, whose name has not been officially confirmed.

According to numerous media reports, Willeford flagged down local Johnnie Langendorff, and the two pursued Kelley in Langendorff’s truck until Kelley drove off the road. He was found dead in his vehicle, though it is not yet clear whether he took his own life or had been wounded earlier by Willeford.

Both Willeford and Langendorff are being hailed as heroes for confronting the gunman.

Critics on social media argue that the “good guy with a gun” did not prevent the gunman from killing 26 and wounding dozens more.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

An Egyptian immigrant, convicted paedophile, and serial rapist will have his jail term in the UK reduced because he is deaf and cannot hear the television in his cell or chat to other inmates.

Imprisonment was said to be “isolating” for Egyptian national Gamal Demian, 51, who is also mute, and claims he cannot watch entertainment or communicate with other people.

He was sentenced to 20 years after raping and sexually assaulting three girls as young as eight. But appeal judges slashed the term to 18 years after hearing that he was struggling with life behind bars.

According to The Sun, his barrister Judith Benson said: “His isolation because of his deafness within the prison is increased in comparison to an ordinary prisoner.

“He is unable to watch TV or partake in any other media of that sort. His life essentially consists of a period of time in workshops where he is able to have minimal communication.

“Save for that, he has no means of communication or passing time.”

According to the Express, Ms. Benson added: “Each day in prison is going to be so much more burdensome and difficult” and argued the rapist had a more boring time in jail because of his disability.

The migrant and Egyptian national moved to West London from Cairo in 2004 and worked in a High Street shop. He was jailed last October at Kingston Crown Court in southwest London.

On top of his jail term, he will serve a further three years on an extended licence as he is considered “dangerous”.

At the Court of Appeal, Judge Adele Williams said disability should not automatically result in a shorter term. But she added: “We are persuaded some reduction is appropriate.”

Saudi officials announced on Monday that they would seek to limit imports of uranium to generate nuclear energy by developing a domestic extraction program to foster “self-sufficiency in producing nuclear fuel.”

While the Saudi government has not expressed a desire to create nuclear weapons, it remains publicly concerned that regional rival Iran may be developing nuclear weapons in violation of international law, and Saudi officials in the past have not dismissed the possibility of developing nuclear weapons if necessary to defend against a nuclear-armed Iran.

“Regarding the production of uranium in the kingdom, this is a program which is our first step towards self-sufficiency in producing nuclear fuel,” the Saudi official in charge of the atomic energy, Hashim bin Abdullah Yamani, said on Monday, according to Reuters. Yamani was speaking before an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference in Abu Dhabi, according to Reuters.

The outlet notes that, while Yamani discussed domestic production of uranium, he did not mention any desire to launch uranium enrichment programs in Saudi Arabia. Most uranium is stable and must be enriched to extract the radioactive isotopes used for nuclear energy programs—and nuclear weapons. Yamani did state categorically that the harvesting of uranium domestically was meant “to introduce nuclear power for peaceful purposes.”

“The IAEA also has been requested to conduct an integrated review of our nuclear infrastructure during the second quarter of 2018,” he added.

In a separate report on Tuesday, Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia had sent official requests to international nuclear reactor builders for more information on commissioning the construction of reactors to be used in new plants. Reuters cited an “industry source” who told the outlet, “Saudi Arabia has just sent the request for information to various companies and it is being examined.”

A nationwide overhaul of energy infrastructure is part of what the Saudi regime calls “Vision 2030,” a plan to bring the nation into the 21st century with the development of giant infrastructure developments and industrial projects. On Tuesday, Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, a columnist for the Saudi newspaper al-Arabiya, described the 2030 program as featuring “mega projects” that “are about the ‘wow factor’—futuristic ideas, dreams, creativity, entertainment, technology and modernity.” Reuters noted in its report that Saudi Arabia’s plan proposes “building some 17.6 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032, the equivalent of about 17 reactors.”

Vision 2030 is a pet project of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has taken on a prominent role as the leader of the “modernization” of the country. Bin Salman has made said in public statements that he does not see modernization as merely economic. Last week, he said the purpose of the 2030 plan was to create “a tolerant country with Islam as its constitution and moderation as its method.”

Mohammed bin Salman explicitly referred to a “moderate Islam that is open … to all religions,” a marked shift from the decades that Saudi Arabia has spent investing in fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islamic ideology.

The Kingdom appears to be endeavoring to position itself as a reasonable cooperative partner against the increasingly belligerent and expansive Iran, and its overtly peaceful nuclear ambitions are rekindling old concerns that the Saudis may be seeking to prepare in the event of Iran’s successful development of a nuclear weapon.

That concern has been around for years. In 2015, amid the development of what would become the Obama Iranian nuclear deal, rumors circulated that Riyadh had reached out to at least one nuclear-armed ally, Pakistan, to inquire about the purchase of a weapon. Pakistan denied the reports.

A month later, an unnamed Saudi official told the Washington Post that the passing of the Iranian nuclear deal “would give a green light to his own government to start a nuclear energy program.”

Saudi officials never announced the launch of such a program despite the ultimate passing of that program. A year later, however, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir asserted that Riyadh would do “whatever we need to do in order to protect our people” in response to a question on Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions.

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.