How well do you understand the Bill of Rights?

Sunday, December 15th, marked the 228th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  That anniversary got me thinking about how so few on all sides of the political spectrum properly understand this most important protector of our rights.  This is because our elected officials on all levels have distorted the original meaning so much that the current understanding is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning as understood by those that framed and ratified it.  Our abysmal education system, which teaches political correct revisionist history rather than civics, the news media, and our entertainment industry are also to blame.

Here are the most common and most dangerous misconceptions about the Bill of Rights that I’ve encountered.

1. The Bill of Rights grants us our rights, 

People on the right and the left regularly spread this mistruth; most commonly by stating the we have First Amendment rights, or something similar.  This is a dangerous notion because our rights could then be taken away by amending the Bill of Rights or disregarding the actual meaning, which has been done too often.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence tells us exactly where the framers of the Bill of Rights believed our rights come from:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

2. The Bill of Rights applies to the States

It is abundantly clear from the debates that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution, where the states conventions demanded a Bill of Rights, that the purpose of those amendments was to restrain the federal government only.  This is also abundantly clear from the debates where the Bill of Right s was framed, and the debates where the amendments were ratified by the states.  Thomas Jefferson explained this very eloquently when he wrote the first draft of the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “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:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

Some of the readers of this article might strenuously disagree with the fact that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the states.  This was done by the framers of the Bill of Rights on purpose because they believed granting the federal government all of that power would result in a gigantic and oppressive federal government.  We have this now because the federal government granted itself unconstitutionally the power to extend the Bill of Rights down to the states. 

The Bill Rights is a hands off list for the federal government.  Our rights are too precious for the federal government to interfere with in any way.  The framers believed that state and local governments were the proper levels to make decisions regarding these rights because the people could better oversee the state and local levels.

All state constitutions have a Bill of Rights which protects the rights of the citizens of that state.  Here is what Clause 13 of the Virginia Rill of Rights has to say about the right to bear arms.  The current governor of Virginia should take note.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level

As you can see from the actual text of  Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that amendment was never meant to extend the entire Bill of Rights down to the states.  The only clause that was extended was the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court created the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation by disregarding the text of the amendment and the transcripts of the debates where it was written and ratified.  Incorporation has resulted in tremendous harm such as the banning of most things religious from the public square,  setting criminals free because of a technicality, and so much more.

4.  The Fourteenth Amendment granted the Supreme Court the authority to overturn state laws involving the Bill of Rights.

Using the unconstitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Supreme Court single handedly granted itself the power to overturn state laws.  As you can see from the actual text of Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  that power was specifically not granted to the Supreme Court by the amendment, but instead granted to the US Congress through the formal legislative process.  That was because the Dred Scott ruling stood firmly in the minds of those that wrote the amendment. 

The only way to restore the original meaning of the Bill of Rights is by using the internet to educate others.  Please help me do that by sharing this article on social media.  Also, please consider contributing to this website by using the Tip Jar.

What Do Joe Biden and Jeff Epstein have in Common? Why DatechGuy’s Laws of media outrage of course

It’s quite amusing to see the left go all out of Joe Biden these days, partially because I think of all the potential Democrat candidates Joe Biden is one of the most, if not THE most dangerous for Donald Trump to face and conservatives underestimate him at our peril.

But what’s really Amusing is to note how the Joe Biden story, Like the Jeffery Epstein story (you know the fellow who got off easy concerning underage hookers and a private Island) this story perfectly illustrates not one but TWO of DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media outrage.

The Joe Biden story, like the Jeffery Epstein Story before was well known and conservative writers like myself, Instapundit and Robert Stacy McCain had brought it up repeatedly. However even though the Biden story involved a sitting vice Preisdent and Bill Clinton was an ex president nobody in the MSM had any interest, why? DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media Outrage:

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

As long as Joe Biden was Obama’s man and Jeffrey Epstein Bill Clinton’s then Biden’s actions as well as the action of the AG who let Epstein off with a wrist slap were completely acceptable to the left and media and thus were not worth of any publicity per DaTechGuy’s 3rd law of media outrage

The MSM’s elevation and continued classification of any story as Nationally Newsworthy rather than only of local interest is in direct correlation to said story’s current ability to affirm any current Democrat/Liberal/Media meme/talking point, particularly on the subject of race or sexuality.

As long as the Biden and Epstein stories were potentially harmful to Democrats they were not newsworthy or wroth reporting. Once the Epstein AG became part of the Trump Administration and Bill Clinton was already tarred by the METOO movement (and Hillary considered no longer viable as a candidate) suddenly the Epstein story was newsworthy.

And now Joe Biden, finding himself a non-socialist white straight male in a party that ascribes all the ills of the universe to such people is suddenly expendable to a large swath of the Democrat left and thus to a large swath of the political left now an expendable potential liability, suddenly his actions are newsworthy and unacceptable.

To be sure some of the old guard (Mika, Whoppi and Pelosi) continue to defend him but as far as the MSM is concerned Joe Biden is now a liability to the left and thus worthy of all the scrutiny that a conservative might be subjected to.

Nancy, Mueller and Datechguy’s 4th Law of Media Outrage

DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media Outrage are some of the most useful ways to predict how the media or the left will react in any given moment. Nancy Pelosi’s surprise announcement against impeachment this week provides an excellent excuse to promulgate the newest of these laws.

I believe that Impeachment was off the table was known by the Democrat leaders for quite a while. The problem was when to break the news to the voter and donor base whose exceptions they’ve raised on the issue. The idea was to break the news at a time when it would be least damaging to their 2020 chances.

The real question of course is how can we conclude did would be the result? Why the answer is as clear as DaTechGuy’s 4th Law of Media Outrage

The degree of media exposure of the corruption or illegality committed by any individual or organization under investigation is directly proportional to its distance from the media’s ideology.

Datechguy’s 4th law of media outrage

In other words if a target of any investigation is close to the media’s ideology (a leftist democrat) no leaks will be forthcoming and the press will happily await the end of any investigation before reporting, but if the target is a conservative or a republican, whole teams of reporters will be on the case any every leak provided by investigators will be promulgated even to the point of recklessness.

This is actually the point I made to answer Jonah Goldberg point on the Bush video during election 2016:

If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary).


I double down and re-endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States! 10-8-16

Nothing has illustrated this better than the Mueller investigation/fishing expedition:

The special council’s office and the Democrat members of the various investigating committees have not been shy about providing the press with information and the press has not been shy about running with it, whether they be rumors meant to exaggerate what they have or tips to forthcoming actions (read the Roger Stone raid). But there is one thing that you can be sure of:

If team Mueller actually HAD evidence of impeachable offenses by Donald Trump Nancy Pelosi and Company would have known it 1st and the media would have known it 2nd and the GOP would have known it 3rd and Donald Trump would have been toast months if not years ago.

Rush Limbaugh might disagree with me on this and think a deeper game is being played here, and to be sure if they can somehow spin the public and/or bluff Trump into thinking they have something, they’ll act accordingly, but I say the reality is Mueller has nothing, Pelosi knows he has nothing and DaTechGuy’s 4th law of media outrage confirms it.



Closing thought:  In fairness I’m of the opinion that Pelosi and Company actually thought they would find crimes during this investigation. Democrats always project so to such people the concept that Donald Trump had not used their own corrupt tactics (Uranium one anybody) to advance his cause simply had not occurred to them and I suspect the fact that Mueller could not find evidence of actual crimes to charge the President was a bit of a shock.

This site is paid for by you. If you think what we do worthwhile please consider subscribing to help keep our writers and the bills paid.

Andre Galloway Jazmine Barnes & DaTechGuy’s Third Law of Media Outrage

The are few things more predictable than the MSM’s reaction to a potential news story and it is that predictability that is the basis of DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media Outrage the first is this:


The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made

DaTechGuy’s 1st Law of Media Outrage

This was quickly followed by the 2nd

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

DatechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media Outrage

While these laws are pretty solid while writing yesterdays piece on the murders of Andre Galloway, a 16 year old black youth in Baltimore with no criminal history, and Jazmine Barnes a black seven year old girl also with no criminal history. It occured to me that while my two existing laws were correct they only covered events involving activists and pols and did not address how the media reactions when the people involved are not national figures.

Jazmine Barnes murder became a national cause célèbre repeatedly promoted, discussed and debated all across the msm right up until it turned out that the killers were two black men and not the white fellow that witnesses had all claimed at the beginning. This incidentally hasn’t stopped the person originally fingered by activists from remaining under threat:

The family of a man whose photo went viral on social media as a possible suspect in the murder of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes is telling everyone to “back off.”
Hailey Cantrell says despite the arrests of two suspects in the murder case, as recent as Monday, there have been threatening comments on her Facebook page regarding her uncle, Robert Cantrell.
“I hear, ‘Someone is going to rape, torture and murder the women and children in your family,” Hailey read from one comment.

I suspect this had a lot to do with Sean “I’m black really I am” King fingering the man via twitter but King insists it has nothing to do with race:

Meanwhile after a full year neither the MSM nor King has had anything to say about the still unsolved murder of Andre Galloway which gained the scant prominence it did due to the fact that his was the 1st of Baltimore’s 300+ murders of 2018.

Clearly the lack of a racial angle made Andre Galloway’s murder uninteresting to the MSM but if a racial angle can be found even the most mundane events can, facts not withstanding become a national story


The media claimed that a white woman called the police on a black woman who was merely standing in the doorway of an apartment building because she hates The Blacks.
But the woman waiting in the doorway wasn’t black. She was Hispanic. Her name is Obregon. This should have been a tip-off that she was Hispanic rather than black.
The woman who called the cops wasn’t white. She, too, was Hispanic. Her name is Torres. This should have been a tip-off that she was also Hispanic rather than white.
So we have a truly non-racial situation here — a person of one race calling the cops on a person of the same race.
And she called the cops because she’s autistic and found the presence of a strange woman in her doorway out-of-the-ordinary and therefore #Triggering in the real, non-stupid sense of the word.
Other than that — great job, media!

and isn’t all that interested in correcting the story when they’re wrong:


Months later, the internet still knows Torres as “Doorway Debbie.” She has made numerous attempts at suicide. “I felt that nobody was going to do anything, no one was going to face any repercussions unless I were to kill myself,” Torres said. “I tried to kill myself, I cut myself. I just felt so done and I felt ‘this is never going to get better,’” Emily Crane’s story
 covering Obregon’s and Torres’ interaction at the Daily Mail was deleted without any sort of retraction. Others still have not corrected their stories (
Newsweek 
Ebony Magazine, etc.) . Others made changes to the headline from “white woman calls the cops on black woman” to “woman calls cops on woman” without explaining on the bottom of the article that the original post was corrected, as journalistic ethics require.

And it’s stuff like this that has encouraged race hoaxers such as the one in Lunenberg years ago that cost the town it’s Thanksgiving football game that year figuring that there would be no legal repercussions if caught. As I wrote at the time:

You see the primary suspect in this story is no longer the largely white football team in a small town but the mother of the supposed target of the racist graffiti. It is no longer a story about racism, it is about yet another race hoax. If the team had still been the suspect and racism been the theme and the DA a republican the decision to not press charges would be a source of national outrage and coverage but remember the rule we stated yesterday.

I submit & suggest it’s because all of these stories involve Democrats and their national memes and Democrats understand that when it comes to such stories MSM immediately recognizes them as unnewsworthy.

We have reached a point where it is no longer necessary to submit and suggest this idea so it is now time to formalize DaTechGuy’s Third Law of Media Outrage:

The MSM’s elevation and continued classification of any story as Nationally Newsworthy rather than only of local interest is in direct correlation to said story’s current ability to affirm any current Democrat/Liberal/Media meme/talking point, particularly on the subject of race or sexuality.

It’s worth noting that nowhere in the law listed above does the actual subject of the story mentioned. Graffiti on on the side of a house? A call to the police over a person in an apartment? A person having problems ordering a pizza? All are stories are worth national attention from the moment they support Democrats talking points and remain so right up until the moment that the facts fail that test.

Meanwhile drive by shootings, beatings and murder, even if they are race based, are not national stories if they don’t support the talking points and memes that the left wishes to advance.

That’s not how it should be, but that’s how it is.

Jeffrey Epstein Hillary Clinton Election 2020 & DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media outrage

On Wednesday I noticed this on twitter concerning Jeffrey Epstein and the Miami Herald:

The Miami Herald has put together a bombshell of an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and prosecutors who negotiated a sealed plea arrangement that allowed the billionaire to only spend a year in jail and avoid prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting dozens of underage girls in what the paper described as a “sex pyramid scheme.”

As yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the blog, the name instantly brought back memories of days gone past, some very LONG past.

It’s axiomatic that sex sells so when you combine the words: “Private Island”, “Lawsuit” & “Orgies” you have a story that normally is guaranteed viral:

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

That was from April 2014 and the entire gist of the piece titled

Private Islands, Orgies, Bill Clinton? Nothing to see here

was how this story did not go viral because it involved Bill Clinton:

If there is one thing the media that loves to play the War on Women® card doesn’t want to touch it’s a story about people using their own private island to get laid that involves Bill Clinton.

What could the media do if this story involving the former father of the year? They would call it old news, not relevant, dirty tricks from a salacious lawsuit that doesn’t even involve him and an attack on Hillary that crosses the line. In fact the left will deploy a plethora of adjectives to discourage further discussion of this story from antiquated to zany, but there is one adjective that could not come out of their mouth to dismiss this story:

Unbelievable

The last few years have proven that the left can convince a low information voter of a lot of things, but even the full power of the mainstream media and the strongest zealots from the War on Women® brigade would not be able to convince the American public that Bill Clinton would have no interest or business on a private island where orgies took place.

The real exclamation point to this argument came two years later in May of 2016 when on Morning Joe, Donny Deutch explained why the left’s attacks on Donald Trump vis a vis women could backfire because of the magic words: Jeffrey Epstein

“Here’s the tennis game,” Deutsch said. “Donald Trump kissed a woman in a bathing suit. Trump hits back: Tell me about the president’s relationship with a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. That’s your tennis match.”

and the entire Morning Joe table reacted, not in words but by their faces:

well take a look at the video and two things become immediately clear.

Everybody at the Table knows who Jeffery Epstein is, and what the story is

Nobody at the table wanted to talk about it

In fact they SO didn’t want to talk about it that NBC put in a copyright claim on the video that the Washington Free Beacon had excerpted in their piece thus hiding this previously viral video from anyone who didn’t remember the day, the segment and how to navigate the byzantine labyrinth of their embed system.  As I put it at the time:

Maybe it’s just me but given how often we see stuff at mediaite et al it seems rather unusual for a news network to make a copyright claim over a clip from a news story that used as “fair use” by another news organization. Could this suggest that NBC wants to keep this clip out of the public view because it might hurt Hillary?

I can see the NBC reaction now: Nonsense, we’re not censoring the clip at all. The seven minute clip IS available IF you

Go to the Morning Joe site

Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine

Search for Donald Trump

Narrow the field to Morning Joe

Narrow the field to May 16th 2016

and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.

And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.

If you do so you CAN find the clip and watch the Morning Joe panel’s reaction to what Donny Deutsch says

All of this was of course completely consistent with DaTechGuy’s 1st law of media outrage which states

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

In this case we were talking an action rather than an insult or prevarication but the law fits.  There was no political distance between the left and Bill Clinton and a clear connection to Mr. Epstein, therefore the level of interest or outrage concerning Mr. Epstein’s actions concerning underage women were consequently zero.

So what changed the equation more than two years later?  This is partially answered by this line in the story at Twitchy (emphasis mine):

Since Epstein is linked to both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and since the prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal is current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, we imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more about it in the coming weeks.

So there is a now a Trump/administration connection to be exploited here, but even so, Mr. Acosta has been secretary of labor for eighteen months and the Weinstein revelation and the #metoo have been a thing since at least Oct of 2017.  Why wait a full year to go there, particularly when a scandal involving a Florida republican might have been useful to bring up before a critical 2018 Florida election, an election that Democrats lost?

The answer comes from a seemingly unrelated story in the Hill from last month

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during an event over the weekend left the door open to a possible 2020 run, saying that even though she doesn’t want to run, “I’d like to be president.” 

Clinton’s comments come as speculation has increased over whether she will launch another bid after the midterm elections….

She added that she’s not going to think about a possible run until after the midterm elections next month. 

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, announced this month that they will be embarking on a 13-city tour over the next year, hosting discussions about current events and politics across the country.

There are a lot of Democrats who are thinking of running in 2020 who believe they can beat Donald Trump but of all those potential 2020 candidates Hillary Clinton is unique as she is only one who we can say with complete certainty that President Trump is capable of defeating because he’s already done so once.

As the media primary purpose is to elect Democrats, it is in their interest and of course in the interest of every single other potential Democrat candidate that Hillary is NOT the 2020 Democrat nominee.  The problem of course is finding a way to shall we say persuade Hillary and Bill that a 2nd run for President is a bad idea without risking her wrath by a direct attack?

That’s where Jeffrey Epstein and DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media outrage comes into play:

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

If the MSM thought a Hillary Clinton for President 2020 run was good for democrats then the Jeffrey Epstein story would remain on open Washington secret only to be mentioned by conservative bloggers who can be banned by twitter or whose traffic can be manipulated by Google.

But with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s potential value in electing liberal Democrats in 2020 low or perhaps even negative, the media can, and indeed MUST expose the sweetheart deal that Mr. Epstein received at the hand of prosecutors years ago not because of their faux outrage over Epstein acts but because of their desire to win in 2020.

You might think that’s a rather cynical opinion, and 10 years ago today I might not have held it, but as I said yesterday:

There is an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt and nothing has increased by contempt for the MSM then observing them closely for 10 years except for one thing, that is being in the room with them as credentialed press and simply watching and listening to what they say and do. 

After 10 years of watching these folks in action I submit and suggest that no other opinion is possible.

********************

—————–

if you think this site is still worth supporting after 10 years please consider kicking in here:



Or even better subscribing.


Choose a Subscription level


Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

 

DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Democrat/Media Outrage


A while back we postulated DaTechGuy’s theory (law) of Media Outrage which states:

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

However looking at the theory (law) as it stands it seems to be missing a few things.  First of all the theory (law) while supported by the current evidence, only covers words, and not so much actions or beliefs. nor does it convey the progression of certain things from acceptable to unacceptable.

So I’d like to propose a corollary to this theory  or DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Democrat/Media Outrage.

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

As we noted in our first post in March, the test of any such theory or law requires evident to show it is true.  Namely can we see a progression on the media/left positions based on support for the Democrat party?

As a matter of fact we can!

We can see this progression in many ways for example take the confederacy:

When Democrats’ national position depended on unwavering support from “the Solid South,” we got lots of pro-Southern propaganda: the Lost Cause, Gone With The Wind, Disneyfied Uncle Remus, etc. As a vital Democrat constituency group, southerners, even practical neo-Confederates, were absolved of all sins as long as they stayed in line.

A great example of this was cited by Dinesh D’Sousa

In fact as late as 2003  Howard Dean was saying things like this:

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” the former Vermont governor said in an interview published Saturday in the Des Moines Register. “We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

This is actually no surprise because despite the MSM narratives to the contrary Democrats still held the majority of the State House of Representatives of the old confederacy.  But as the Democrats went farther left by 2008 and became a secular party they continued to lose states south of the Mason Dixon line until today of the bible belt and border states only Delaware (which they first took in 2009) and Maryland which they’ve continually held for almost 100 years remain in their hands and the worm suddenly turned.  As Glenn Reynolds put it

Now the South isn’t “solid” anymore — or, more accurate, it’s becoming pretty solidly Republican — so rather than receiving cultural dispensations, it now gets targeted for cultural warfare.

Or consider Christianity.  As long as the Democrat Party had a large contingent of religious voters then the Bill Clintons, Hillary Clintons, Al Gores and even Barack Obama’s didn’t attack or demonize those who had followed the same teachings of Christianity that have been taught for thousands of years.  In fact back in the Clinton years the Democrats insisted that anyone claiming that the Democrats were pushing for Gay Marriage were alarmists.

But once it became clear in 2012 that it was the Gay lobby and the money and votes they need would be more critical Christianity was something to be ditched and Gay Marriage and Transgenderism was to be embraced.  When it became clear that even the Christian black vote would not turn on Obama suddenly anyone who didn’t follow the Gay Marriage/Transgender agenda were bigots and haters.

And then there is Islam.  During the 90’s and up until 2008 it was not controversial for American president and members of congress to support the wars against radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan and to condemn acts of Islamic Terror.

But once supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood started opening their wallets, particularly in big cities, to build mosques, and fund university programs, and Democrats figured out that even they can’t vote the dead if their aborted and the ghastly Tom Hagen math takes over:

 In 20 years the children of Muslims now being raised on the tenets of Sharia law in America will be old enough to vote and Democrats going to make sure they get those votes when the time come, not now but 10-20 years from now. 

This is how suddenly Orando goes from a terror attack by a Gay hating muslim to something to be blamed on the GOP and the NRA.

It’s also how an American president (Obama) and secretary of state (Kerry) become willing to throw Israel under the bus to keep Islam and Bernie Bros happy.

the truth is the Bernie Sanders democrats are anti Israel and have spent the entire Obama administration courting a growing segment of the population that is pro dead jews and growing a base, particularly on campus that hates Israel openly and hates Jews clandestinely.

It’s also incidentally why the ACLU, found itself under attack for upholding one of the few nonpartisan principles they had retained, namely free speech.  Once their defense of free speech was inconvenient to the left the attacks began and the ACLU evolved, very quickly.  Why?

But a new generation of ACLU members and donors, who surged to the group after the election of President Donald Trump, know the group primarily as a champion of causes typically aligned with the left, like pressing for greater immigrant and LGBT rights, and reducing criminal penalties.

Since the election, the ACLU’s membership has nearly quadrupled to 1.6 million and the group has received $83 million in online donations, said Stacy Sullivan, an ACLU spokeswoman.

In November, the ACLU solicited donations on its home page with a picture of the then president-elect and the words, “We’ll see you in court.”

And as the corollary notes, the farther you get from the the left’s positions, the less tolerated your positions become.

So if you are a group or individual or even a business and wonder how the left will react at any given time, my advice is to simply apply DaTechGuy’s Laws of Democrat/Media Outrage and you can see what’s coming every single time.


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar

Henriquez and Lunenburg Nothing (Useful) to see here…

Yesterday Carlos Henriquez made the front page of the Boston Herald:

Inmate lawmaker Rep. Carlos Henriquez is doing his Beacon Hill business from his Billerica jail cell, thumbing through bills and budget proposals, and speaking to staff by phone “at least once a day,”

according to the disgraced Dorchester Democrat’s legislative aide.

“We’ve been in regular contact with him, and at this point he’s concerned with the issues of the district,” aide Jessica DaSilva told the Herald.

Prison is a pretty boring place so Henriquez is lucky to have all this legislative and constituent business to keep his day full.

DaSilva said Henriquez’s office is fielding four or five constituent calls a day, mostly from people concerned about cuts to unemployment benefits. She said Henriquez also has been reviewing budget amendments, though she would not say which.

If nothing else it means the voters know where he is 24/7 and he has time to read the bills if he so chooses.

Now to me A lawmaker convicted of assaulting a women who refused him sex and had to escape his car in the wee hours of the morning is, in the era of the “war on woman” a national story, that same lawmaker refusing to resign is even more so but that lawmaker on the front page of a state newspaper doing legislative work from in prison while refusing to resign? How does that not lead?

For the same reason as this story out of Lunenburg will get very little press:

There is not enough evidence to charge the prime suspect in a racist graffiti case that rocked Lunenburg late last year, Worcester County District Attorney Joseph D. Early, Jr. said Wednesday.

No charges?

“We have notified the Lunenburg Police Department that the evidence presented to us fails to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed by a particular person,” wrote Early in an email his office has been sending to Lunenburg residents who have inquired about the case.

But this story was big news, it even appeared on national TV shows,

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

How can this be? The base story appeared in papers as far away as Atlanta Ga & London England, it made SI.

Yet the DA’s office has suddenly decided that the reasonable doubt standard that used to apply to juries in the case replaces the “ham sandwich” standard that normally applies to indictments.

Now it could be that the DA decided that it would be a waste of taxpayer money, and that a conviction is unlikely but given the reach of the story such a decision would naturally generate press around the world, and stories full of outrage, a DA would normally be worried about that kind of thing and be prepared to answer a lot of tough question from reporters around the world.

I suspect he is not.

You see the primary suspect in this story is no longer the largely white football team in a small town but the mother of the supposed target of the racist graffiti. It is no longer a story about racism, it is about yet another race hoax. If the team had still been the suspect and racism been the theme and the DA a republican the decision to not press charges would be a source of national outrage and coverage but remember the rule we stated yesterday.

I submit & suggest it’s because all of these stories involve Democrats and their national memes and Democrats understand that when it comes to such stories MSM immediately recognizes them as unnewsworthy.

So like the Democrat combatant in the war on women currently doing his legislative work behind bars, the race hoaxer who turned her community upside down with a phony race card and the Democrat’s DA decision not to prosecute are simply not newsworthy.

Meanwhile my question from last month still stands:

Where does the town of Lunenburg go to get their reputation back, where does the football team go to get their Thanksgiving game back and who pays for all the police, local state and federal that were used in the attempt to sell this BS?

nothing to see here, move along.

Exit question: While one can argue that the family in the small town is now marked and suffered enough what sort of incentive is created for the next race hoaxer who wants to destroy a person or a town’s reputation for personal or political reasons when they know they are unlikely to face any legal consequence?

Update: The Parents of some of the boys who were initially implicated are none too happy

“I said it before and I’ll say it again, the people that are responsible for this are cowards,” Szabady said. “You know, to do something like this and blame it on kids and just sit back and watch? You’re a coward. And the law will eventually catch up to you.”

Or perhaps not.

By an odd coincidence the AG of Massachusetts is running for governor. I wonder if such a case, if prosecuted might be problematic during the campaign? Then again maybe there is hope

The Lunenburg Police Chief tells WBZ-TV that federal charges could be filed.

Yeah I’m sure Eric Holder will get right on that one.

Meanwhile Stacy McCain has discovered another perp that doesn’t fit the media’s template.

Update 2: Glenn Reynolds linked to the Boston Herald Story above. Does that mean national republicans will finally use this as a weapon in the war on women BS? If they do and it gets repeated on any national show I predict pressure from national democrats will have Henriquez out of office so fast it will make your head swim.

Update 3: Why is Henriquez not resigning after assaulting a women who refused him sex? Maybe we should ask his mom Sandra Henriquez Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing for the Obama administration.

Where does Lunenburg go to get it’s Reputation back?

It’s amazing the difference a few weeks has made in the City of Lunenburg:

Was it only a few weeks ago that we learned how racist the Town of Lunenburg in general and the football team in particular? That the football team in was responsible for painting:  “Knights don’t need niggers” on the house of a bi-racial family with a young and very talented football player on the team who was subject to a spate of bullying?

Didn’t we have editorials decry the racism of the town, didn’t the governor weigh in, weren’t commentators talking all about this.

Didn’t Good Morning America weigh in?

Breaking News from ABC
|
ABC Sports News

and compare it to the Miami Dolphens scandal?

The Lunenburg story has echoes of the rookie hazing scandal that has enveloped the NFL’s Miami Dolphins.

Veteran Richie Incognito was suspended indefinitely on Nov. 4 after rookie Jonathan Martin turned in voice mails and text messages that allegedly showed Incognito using the N-word to describe Martin and threaten his family, according to ESPN.

The controversy came to light after Fox Sports reported that Martin and other rookies had been forced to pay thousands of dollars for dinner tabs and vacations for more veteran members of the team.

And didn’t the Lunenburg Football team forfeit the rest of the games and have their traditional Thanksgiving game cancelled?

Well that was only fair, after all you can’t let racism like that stand. As far as all right thinking people were concerned they had it coming….

…what a difference a few weeks and an actual investigation makes.

First the Football team is cleared:

Police in Lunenburg, Mass. say high school football players were not responsible for racist graffiti found on the side of a junior varsity player’s home.

So with the football team cleared, the question remains: Who is responsible for the racist graffiti sprayed on the home?

And the parents who had plenty to say before …

Chief Jim Marino said the Phillips parents are not talking to police anymore.

…are now singing a different tune:

Anthony Phillips returned to the end of his driveway to wait for his children to get off the school bus. Asked about rumors that he might have been involved in the incident, Phillips replied, “That just shows you how racist this town is.”

And Today the worm turned…big time:

The Boston Globe:

Police search Lunenburg home where graffiti found

Police focus turns toward victim’s mother in Lunenburg racist graffiti case

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette:

Search warrant issued at Lunenburg home where racist graffiti was reported

The Lowell Sun

Investigators focusing on mother of Lunenburg graffiti victim

And the Sentinel & Enterprise :

Investigators are focusing on the mother of a Lunenburg teen whose home was spray painted with racist graffiti last month, according to court documents.

Former Lunenburg High School football player Isaac Phillips’ mother Andrea Brazier, replied “OK” when an FBI agent suggested she was the one who spray painted graffiti on the house, according to an affidavit.

The Sentinel has been all over this story from day one.

Now that the case has gone the full circle from outrage confirming liberal prejudices to yet another race hoax it’s time for the question to be asked

Where does the town of Lunenburg go to get their reputation back, where does the football team go to get their Thanksgiving game back and who pays for all the police, local state and federal that were used in the attempt to sell this BS?

And will the sites in AtlantaMetro USThe UK Daily MailSports IllustratedFox Chicago and the Huffington Post be reporting on these new developments with the same gusto?

Update: Stacy McCain links (sorry I hit the sack early last night and had the PC off) and he knows something (Bill Sparkman) about hoaxes

Ruh-roh. If she lied to the FBI, she could be in big trouble. But since when is it the FBI’s job to investigate racist graffiti? And if real racist graffiti is a federal offense, what is fake racist graffiti? The alleged hate crime was a big deal last month:

Two quick thoughts:

1. It really boggles the mind that someone would be willing to tar a group of teenagers, their families, a school and really an entire Town for the sake of a personal agenda. That degree of selfishness is incredible in its narcissistic depth.

2. If it turns out that the mother is the culprit she has done more damage to her son and her marriage than any amount of teaching or racist words could have done. And it will follow her son for years. How does a parent not realize that?

Update 2:  Michael Graham reports Lunenburg school folks haven’t learned much:

Now, with egg splattered all over their faces, the Lunenburg administrators STILL INSIST they did the right thing!

“I never looked at the cancellations as punishment, although it was certainly viewed that way by many. In the end, the safety of students and attendees at the games was deemed as of paramount importance. At no time did I or any employee of the schools indict or implicate players,” said Lunenburg Superintendent of Schools Loxi Jo Calmes.

Lunenburg’s superintendent and high school principal defended the decision to cancel the rest of the football season amid allegations against the players of writing racist graffiti.

“I thought would I have brought my own kids to that game? And the answer is no way. Why? Because it wasn’t safe to play,” Principal Brian Spadafino said.

The Lunenburg high football game “wasn’t safe?” From what–marauding bands of spray-painters?  Hordes of KKK members?

I think the next batch of town elections in Lunenburg are going to be very interesting.

Update 3:
 Ace finds the story.

Update 4: Liberty Unyielding notes that all “hate graffiti” is created equal in media eyes:

As an important aside on an unrelated case, about 50 miles away from Lunenburg High, Masslive.com revealed yesterday that three teens were in custody “in connection with 13 incidents in October and November where homes, churches and cars were either vandalized or set on fire.”

The article reads in part,

“Symbols, slurs, sexually explicit images and, in the case of United Church of Ware, an expletive directed at God and the words “Catholic burning,” were spray-painted…” [added emphasis]

This author can find no other mention in any other source of the anti-Catholic slur. Is the FBI involved in that case? Will this anti-Catholic incident be investigated as a “hate crime?”

I guess some targets of hate are more equal than others.