CNN goes full-Orwell during Milwaukee riot, scrubs call to burn suburbs down


Anyone who ever wants to know why Americans do not trust the media needs to merely turn to CNN’s Orwellian coverage of the Milwaukee riots after the shooting death of Sylville K. Smith. After members of the local community went ballistic, burned down a BP gas station, looted buildings, injured cops and shot a man in the neck, Smith’s sister called for them to, “take that s–t to the suburbs! Burn that s–t down!”

CNN then selectively edited its video and said the woman was calling for peace.

Once enough people called the network out on its 1984-inspired reporting, another edit was made and correspondent Ana Cabrera attempted to explain away the decision as “shorthand” that “unintentionally gave viewers the wrong impression.”

Ana Cabrera Twitter

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia…right, CNN?

DeeconX tweet

For those who are not up on the latest details:

  • Sylville K. Smith, an armed black man, was shot by a black cop and killed last Saturday.
  • Sylville K. Smith had a history of arrests.
  • Cops pursued Mr. Smith, who was traveling in a stolen vehicle. The car eventually stopped and he fled on foot.
  • Mr. Smith, armed with a handgun, eventually turned towards a cop with his weapon and was shot.
  • Locals, without any concrete details other than the fact that a man was shot by a cop, started burning their own community to the ground while screaming “Black power!”
  • It is now unacceptable for cops — even black cops — to use deadly force against black suspects for any reason. Sylville K. Smith should have been let go or stopped with fairy magic that wrapped him in warm pink blankets.
  • Police Chief Edward Flynn said body camera footage will vindicate the unidentified cops’s actions.

This story is important because a random guy on Twitter identified as DeeconX should never be in the place where he needs to expose “shorthand” better fit for the old Soviet Union.

This story is important because one of the reasons Donald Trump is popular (again, I’m voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death), is because mainstream media as a whole is often untrustworthy.

This story is important because at some point in time journalists decided that their job was to be political hacks instead of truth-seekers. The long-term consequences to civil society when the media completely abandons its original purpose are enormous. Until there is a shift in perspective, the Western world will continue its downward slide.

Melissa Click calls for Mizzou ‘muscle’ to crush reporters’ rights; future tyrants demand ‘safe space’

Melissa Click Muscle

Timothy Wolfe, the president of the University of Missouri system, gave into demands of student protesters on Monday and resigned. The decision was in response to charges he was not doing enough to respond to racial injustices on the campus in recent months. Lost in the shuffle, however, is the story within the story — the harbinger of an America where women like communications professor Melissa Click have their hands on the levers of power.

Media converged on the school in the wake of Wolfe’s decision, and students and faculty who demanded media attention earlier in the day suddenly wanted total control over journalists — in a public space, no less — with “muscle.”

YouTube video uploaded Monday shows future tyrants shoving student photographer Tim Tai out of a “safe space” (Yes, they really demanded a “safe space” in a public forum). They then called for thuggery on student photographer Mark Schierbecker.

Click: You need to get out! You need to get you!

Schierbecker: No I don’t.

Click: **grabbing camera** You need to get out!

Schierbecker: I actually don’t.

Click: Alright. Hey, who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?! I need some muscle over here!

Even Jake Tapper was taken aback, tweeting: “@melissaclick was that you on the video calling for ‘some muscle’ to remove a student journalist from a public space?

Jake Tapper Melissa Click

Yes it was, Mr. Tapper. Yes it was.

Melissa Click

There is a certain urge to sit back and revel in the fact that liberal administrators are now under an attack — from the left — by the foot soldiers they have trained for years. It is no laughing matter, however.

Here is what I said Oct. 24 when Williams College abruptly pulled the plug on an author’s speech because its organizers thought students would resort to physical violence when their “safe space” was threatened:

The kids at Williams College are being taught a dangerous lesson if threats of violence against unpopular speech are rewarded. Intolerant students are likely to mutate into intolerant political leaders down the line. One doesn’t need a college degree to know that intolerant political leaders easily mutate into totalitarian thugs.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Piers Morgan had a show on CNN. He used to laugh and say things along the lines of, “Do you really think Americans will one day be threatened by a tyrannical government?”

It takes willful ignorance to look at the “safe space” culture permeating the nation and not see how the seeds of tyranny are being sown far and wide. We do not need to ask “if” the seeds take root, but “to what extent.”

Anti-free speech “muscle” on college campuses today will be running for public office tomorrow. Many of these students will become entrenched in executive agencies. They will reach the highest echelons of influence within the entertainment industry and hold positions of power at major news organizations.

Ask yourself: If they ask for football team “muscle” to prevent journalists from doing their job at the college level, what will they do when they have the full force of the U.S. government at their disposal?

University of Missouri staff anti free speech

The anti-free speech “muscle” of Mizzou had a big win on Monday, which means that its allies on campuses across the country will now seek to duplicate or surpass their ideological peers. I implore any young person attending college to push back twice as hard the next time your wannabe police-state overseers request “muscle” to do their dirty work.

University of Missouri activist thugs

NPR ombudsman: Constitution should not protect speech that insults ‘prophets and gods’

Charlie Hebdo die on my feet I’ve met some really nice people over the years who love NPR. Most of them are fairly intelligent as well. However, the peculiar thing about these individuals is that, despite their intelligence, they have a propensity to say frighteningly stupid things. On Feb. 6,  NPR’s outgoing Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos was able to provide the perfect example.

Mr. Schumacher-Matos wrote in his final column:

I am not Charlie.

The French news media may have their ethical standards, but they are not American or sacred universal ones, and they shouldn’t be French ones either. The United States has never had absolute freedom of the press. And the framers of the Constitution—I once held the James Madison Visiting Professor Chair on First Amendment Issues at Columbia University—never intended it to. You wouldn’t know this, however, from listening to the First Amendment fundamentalists piping up from Washington to Silicon Valley.

In this case, the competing social and constitutional demand is the control of hate speech in the interests of social cohesion, without which the very idea of a nation is impossible. …

I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would. It is one thing to lampoon popes, imams, rabbis and other temporal religious leaders of this world; it is quite another to make fun, in often nasty ways, of their prophets and gods. The NPR editors were right not to reprint any of the images.

There you have it: a smart man who is completely unaware of all the frighteningly stupid ideas he’s putting out into the world.

It would be rather bizarre if journalists started publishing nuclear launch codes and the identities of CIA agents in foreign countries, all while operating under the assumption that they could do so with impunity. If one were going to use terms like “First Amendment fundamentalists” to describe “free speech radicals,” then perhaps defenders of such journalists would qualify for membership. However, to use “First Amendment fundamentalist” as a pejorative to describe Charlie Hebdo’s American advocates is absurd.

Charlie Hebdo has said all sorts of “nasty” things about Christians. As a Catholic man, I find the publication’s illustrations of Jesus to be downright revolting — but I will defend their right to publish such pictures until my last breath. The fact that an NPR Ombudsman could ever publish a column in which he advocates giving religious radicals veto power over the content journalists provide their readers only shows how warped our culture has become.

There is no “constitutional demand” to control “hate speech.” There is only the desire among society’s self-proclaimed cultured class to control the actions of the rest of us.

“Hate speech” laws do not act as a salve for the red hot fissures that often occur between disparate groups in a country like The United States of America — they are in fact accelerants. Such laws infuse words with unwarranted power and give every group’s grievance mongers a reason to seek their own list of off-limits speech.

Speaking of off-limits, NPR closed down the comments section on Mr. Schumacher-Matos’ op-ed. Telling, isn’t it?

In the fight for Western Civilization’s soul, the mindset cultivated by men like Mr. Schumacher-Matos is a loser.

NPR closed commentsRelated: Papers go into censorship mode over Paris terror attack; free speech heroes hang up their capes

Piers Morgan: In another life I changed the king’s chamber pot — and loved it

Piers Morgan First Amendment

John Adams said that the American Revolution “connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” His cousin Sam said the passage of the Declaration was the day that the colonists “restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient.”

These men and many of America’s founding fathers understood the important role Christianity played in shaping our nation at its inception. In fact, it’s a good bet that if they were transported in time to 2013 that Piers Morgan would call these men religious “bigots.”

Here is what Piers Morgan said of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson after reading the text of the interview the A&E star gave to GQ magazine:

Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn’t protect vile bigots.

Here is what Mr. Robertson said:

“[Sin isn’t] logical, my man. It’s just not logical. […] Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. […] Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech. Quite the contrary — it exists to protect unpopular speech. The fact that Piers Morgan doesn’t understand a concept that is so crucial to America’s identity indicates that in another life he probably cleaned the king’s chamber pot — and loved every second of it. He carries himself as if he once was a handmaiden to tyranny and it’s carried over into this lifetime. Sadly, he doesn’t even understand how he’s telegraphing for all the world to see that the seeds of an authoritarian monster are alive and well within him.

Americans once got to listen to Frenchmen like Charles de Montesquieu. Today, they get … Piers Morgan, who has now demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not understand or respect the First or Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Americans once got to read the writings of Thomas Paine, who published ‘Common Sense’ on January 9, 1776. Today, they get to read the Twitter feed of men like Piers Morgan, who compensate for what they lack in common sense with blind faith in their own B.S.

What does it say about us that instead of finding this generation’s John Locke that CNN suits settled for the modern equivalent of King George III’s man-servant pooper scooper?

Those of the Morgan-mold are obsessed with banning things they do not like. Whether we are talking about physical objects like guns or something much more precious — like ideas — the modern man of the left has a never-ending “to do” list that involves using force to get you to comply with his vision for the world.

While conservatives believe that A&E viewers are smart enough to decide on their own whether Phil Robertson still belongs on the airwaves, the Piers Morgans of the world feel as though only they can be trusted to make the right call. They do not like talk of God because they see themselves as gods — elite masterminds who must mandate their great ideas to you when you do not accept them. The beatings will continue until morale improves…

Whether or not you think Phil Robertson is a “bigot” for his faith in the Bible, one thing is certain: Men like Piers Morgan are a greater threat to freedom and individual liberties than the Duck Dynasty family or their fans will ever be.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” said Phil. “We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Piers Morgan? Not only is he filled with hate, but he believes he should have the moral authority to impose restrictions on the kinds of thoughts and feelings that disturb his sensibilities.

Related: Operation Mindcrime: Media take out Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson

Los Angeles Times: Saboteur of free speech

The Los Angeles Times offered to give Sarah Chayes some ink. She’s a woman who has spent so much time living in a culture of corruption and tyranny that she’s now doing the dirty work for tyrants in major American newspapers. In order to make her life easier overseas, she promotes curbs on the First Amendment here at home. Here, she watches the Taliban blow off a woman’s head with an AK-47, the always-reliable Kalashnikov, and wonders: “Which American can we hold responsible for this travesty?”

Thomas Jefferson once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He was right. However, what he probably never expected was that free speech would be under attack from dhimmitude clowns like Sarah Chayes, individuals who would willingly shackle and gag themselves before bowing to Islamic slave masters, if it provided them with a little temporary security. They would rather appease tyrants than fight for God-given natural rights. But then again, these things are to be expected, since even the Obama administration has repeatedly stood behind the assertion that the current round of Mideast violence is about “a film.”

Read on, as The Los Angeles Times allows itself to become an intellectual saboteur of free speech:

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. “The most stringent protection,” he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Holmes’ test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a “clear and present danger” of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, “Innocence of Muslims,” the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Who defines what “falsely shouting fire in a theater” is? To Ms. Chayes, it is the imams and clerics, dictators and despots — who stone women, execute gay people, advocate on behalf of “honor killings,” and seek to spread the “behead those who insult Islam” mentality like a virus.

The film “Innocence of Muslims” did not lead to the death of Christopher Stevens in any way. Period. If I want to make a “stick figure Mohammad” flip book tonight and post it online, whereas the “prophet” pole vaults into the arms of his many wives, I have every right to do so. If a Pakistani cleric issues a fatwa on me because I dared to depict Mohammad (again, as a stick figure), and people die because of it, then fault lies with the murderous sub-humans who committed the crime, and the insecure, troubled culture that produced them. Fatwas and death threats aimed at innocent people practicing their right to free speech are symptoms of a disease — a culture that is incompatible with freedom and liberty and the pillars of Western Civilization.

The Los Angeles Times refuses to acknowledge reality, and so they find themselves betraying the keystone to our Constitution.

Much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits … “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard,” [says Anthony Lewis].

While it’s not surprising that The Los Angeles Times thinks it should be the judge, jury and executioner for mind crimes, it’s even more frightening that they would abdicate the setting of the limits of free speech to religious fanatics, whose litmus test for committing violence is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment.

Ms. Chayes ultimately speaks for herself, but her misdiagnosis of what ails the Middle East is shared by many on the left. The current violence in the region, for example, has exposed the Obama administration’s fecklessness in the face of true evil. Its inability to accurately describe the challenges we face overseas is downright scary. However, what is even worse is that the one industry that should be fighting to safeguard our First Amendment rights now lends credence to saboteurs seeking to curtail them.

Judge Mark Martin: Founding Fathers wanted an Islamic Police State

What do you do when a judge tries to reinvent the First Amendment as an edict out of an Iranian mullah’s totalitarian handbook? You expose him. If you haven’t acted accordingly with Judge Mark Martin, do so today. If he’ll tie himself into logical knots to allow atheists to be choked out by inflamed Muslims, what would stop him from doing the same to you?

I normally don’t do much for Halloween, but I might have to reconsider and get dolled up as Zombie Mohammad in light of the recent Pennsylvania court case that determined we no longer have First Amendment rights. Here’s the abridged version: Ernie Perce, an atheist, marches in a parade as zombie Mohammad. An Islamic guy flips out and “allegedly” chokes him along the course (watch the video and decide for yourself). The cops get involved. The case is brought to court, and Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim convert, throws it out because the Founding Fathers apparently wanted an Islamic Police State. He states:

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’ …

And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

Note to Judge (or was that Imam?) Martin: The Constitution doesn’t give us rights—it merely articulates the inalienable rights granted to us by The Creator. Disingenuous men like you wish our rights came from old pieces of paper so you could burn them and replace them with something else—perhaps Koranic verses that could never be burned, lest Afghan civilians—and eventually Americans—go bonkers and kill people?

Are we in the Twilight Zone? Is Judge Mark Martin taking hallucinogenic drugs, reading the Koran, and then driving into work each morning? The idea that the Founding Fathers were not in favor of “provoking” language is absurd. In fact, one could make the case that provoking totalitarian turds and their advocates at home and abroad is necessary and proper! I’d like to ironically say, “God bless atheist Ernie Perce for “provoking” Judge Mark Martin to show his true colors! Perce’s parade persuaded the enemies of liberty to show themselves, through their actions and words.

Here now, is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Got that, Judge? No one gets to implement Sharia Law in the United States. If an Army of Zombie Mohammed Atheists want to parade down the street they can do so, and have every right not to have their life or their liberty threatened by uncorked kooks. Citizens and judges who want to turn Pennsylvania into global skid marks like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran (and every other Islamic police state that executes its critics) need to be exposed for patriotic Americans to see.

What relevance did this judge’s lecture on Islamic culture have to do with the case? Nothing. Who cares if a guy walks down the street trashing someone else’s “essence”? What the heck does that even mean? If someone walked down the street with a sign that literally read: “I hate Douglas Ernst’s Essence and damn that bastard to hell,” would that give me the right to choke him out on the street? Of course not. We’re on a very dangerous path when the rule of law rests in the hands of judges like Mark Martin. The future is not bright when Pentagon officials are going to Virginia mosques to apologize for Koran burnings in Afghanistan (the same Korans taken from terrorists using them to scribble personal “Death to America” journal entries before getting shut eye).

Why are news organizations spiking this story in favor of the latest segment on Rick Santorum’s sweater vest collection? It’s a mad world.