Comments

WHY WE WAIT FOR THE FACTS — 24 Comments

  1. On the cusp of claiming Senior status I believe I’m still of the generation that began slipping away from the hard learned lessons of our fathers and their fathers. I used to think I was soft but today’s youth seems to need to live through the hard times rather than benifit from the progress handed to us.
    When will respect, decency and honor come back in fashion?
    As for the press.. Where is Randy Stone when you need him?

  2. To add to Meghan McCain’s comments, these actions pulled police away from dealing with more serious issues. Today we are hearing that Chicago had something like 30 shootings in one hour and the police are so overtaxed they are having trouble investigating them. They need to have Smollett pay for the time required to investigate and prosecute him.

  3. There are really two issues at play here. One is the issue listed by Mas above. The “Rush to Judgment” that is so often seen from the left-wing, ideologically-driven, legacy media. The clear effort to rush to judgment and to suppress certain facts while playing up others in a constant effort to twist stories to fit the Left-wing narrative.

    We have seen it in case after case: The Zimmerman-Martin shooting, The shooting of Michael Brown, the Death of Freddie Grey, the defamation of the Covington Catholic High School group, the ENTIRE Russian Hoax narrative plus numerous other examples. Now we have seen it repeated with this Jussie Smollett affair. The leftist media is so HELL-BENT to push their own narrow worldview that they start spewing out propaganda from the first second the incident occurs. Why not? No one holds them accountable for their mistakes. I really hope that the $250 Million dollar lawsuit burns the Washington Post good over the Covington HS affair. The media badly needs a lesson in the cost of being propagandists instead of journalists.

    The second issue was not mentioned by Mas but it is a critical component of the mix. This is the whole concept of “Hate Crimes” and “Hate Speech”. So many people have bought into this garbage and go along with these concepts. However, both concepts of hate crimes and hate speech are false and dangerous. They are concepts invented and pushed by the Left to further their agenda.

    Effectively, the Left has defined criminal activity that both (A) violates other people and (B) violates Left-Wing Political Correctness as a “Hate Crime”. By doing so, they push the concept that violating PC principles is “Hate”. Not being Left-wing is “Hateful”. Being a Conservative means being a “Hater”. In reality, the left (in today’s America) is far, far, far more filled with “Hate” then the Right.

    The whole concept of a “Hate Crime” is flawed. Basically, it is saying that a murder committed in violation of PC doctrine is WORSE than a murder committed for other reasons such as robbery or rape. That the punishment (for violating Left-wing principles in addition to harming the victim) requires more punishment. In effect, it says that not being PC is an additional crime. It elevates Left-wing dogma to the status of being LAW. The whole concept is a violation, in my opinion, of the equal protection provision provided by the 14th Amendment. I would like to see all these “Hate Crime” provisions struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE!

    Similarly, the concept of “Hate Speech” is also being used to suppress free speech. To suppress any speech that does not parrot Left-Wing PC dogma. Hate speech laws, again in my opinion, violate the 1st Amendment and are also unconstitutional.

    All these things, the rush to judgment, the use of propaganda to support the left-wing narrative, the use of Hate Crime and Hate Speech laws to punish non-PC compliant behavior: They all contribute to the problems we see in the media and in our Nation.

    • I agree with you on “hate speech”. Even if you buy into the concept that there is a such thing, it’s protected by the U.S. Constitution. (I did a whole series of posts on it over at my site a few years back.)

      However, on “hate crimes”, I’m not so sure I agree with you. I’m generally in favor of harsher penalties — a “hate crime” sentencing enhancement, if you will — for violent crimes committed due to the attacker’s “Othering” of certain protected classes — among them race, gender, age, religion/creed, disability, etc.

      It’s not to say that the crime is worse, per se, but that the attacker’s personal ideology and mindset make him/her a more dangerous person deserving of a longer prison sentence. More depraved, if you will.

      Now, for this concept of “hate crime” enhancement to be legally feasible, it must cover and be applied to ALL bigotry-motivated crimes, INCLUDING urban minorities assaulting white people wearing MAGA hats. If it doesn’t cover both sides — if, as you say, it only covers the crimes that violate Leftist “PC” doctrines — then I’d agree it IS unconstitutional as enforced and must be stricken.

      But either way, “hate speech” is 100% protected. Whether or not one agrees with the expression or sentiment has zero bearing. It’s long established that “offensive” speech is not only protected, but in fact needs more protection precisely because it offends; speech which offends no one is never questioned.

      • Archer – with respect, I must profoundly disagree with your views.

        Every totalitarian regime attempts to write its doctrines into law. Once it does so, violations of doctrine become violations of the law and the regime is then justified to use prison and even execution to attack its critics.

        Example: once the Nazis came to power in Germany, they soon undertook to write their antisemitic doctrines into German law. See this link:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

        Despite their label of “Democratic Socialism”, I can assure you that the American Left is every bit as totalitarian (in their own way) as the Nazis were in theirs. The “Hate Crime” statutes are an effort to write Left-wing doctrines into American Law similar to the way that the Nazis did in Germany.

        These Hate Crime statutes all establish protected classes (based upon race, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) that fit hand-in-glove with the left’s Identity Politics.

        I would submit that it is a very dangerous precedent to have American Law crafted to suit the Left’s totalitarian agenda. To have the law enforce the Left’s Political Correctness dogma.

        I am not the only one who thinks that these “Hate Crime” laws have serious constitutional and practical failings. For more, I refer you to the following links:

        https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hate-crime-bill-goes-against-constitution

        and here:

        https://patriotpost.us/opinion/59048-hate-crime-law-is-both-unwise-and-unconstitutional

  4. It is good that at least someone in the media realizes the part the MSM played in the damage done by this little twerp’s hoax. I will take umbrage with one of the reporter’s statements, though. “And he can be further condemned for making it harder for real victims of real hate crimes — which have been on the rise the past two years — to be believed.” While I agree with his point about making it harder to real victims to be believed, this declaration that hate crimes are on the rise is based on data that does not tell the whole story, so the reporter should do more research and analysis before accepting this “fact”. It is my understanding that while the absolute number of hate crimes the last few years has increased, the increase is likely due to the increase in the number of entities actually reporting those types of crimes. IIRC, the number of hate crimes today is quite a bit less than reported ten years ago as well. I know the liberals are trying to pin an increase on hate crimes on Trump, but I think they are being overly partisan and not statistically sound (what else is new?). Also, how come the MSM doesn’t summarize ALL the numerous hate crime hoaxes that have been perpetrated that last few years? They certainly aren’t bashful about re-hashing all the “mass” shootings of the past when a new one occurs. And they wonder why the mantra of “fake news” resonates with so many people …

    • I would suggest that the media driven liberal definition of a ‘hate crime’ has expanded exponentially to include any words or actions that offend someone for whatever reason.
      This particular case would itself be included in that “rise” in ‘hate crimes’ as are many other hoaxes that were initially publicized and bought into only to be shown to be false later on.

      It’s the accusation and not the conclusion that counts.

    • Tom – I am sad to see that, based upon your comment, you buy into this “Hate Crime” nonsense. You argue the point about whether “Hate Crimes” are increasing or not. I can tell you, with certainty, that “Hate Crimes” are not increasing because “Hate Crimes” don’t really exist!

      As I noted in my previous comment, the whole concept of “Hate Crime” is a scam pulled upon the public by the forces of the Left. Leftists invented the concept of a “Hate Crime” in order to push their obscene agenda.

      In reality, crime is crime. A murder is a crime. It does not matter ONE DAMNED BIT if the motivation for a murder was robbery, rape, vengeance, etc. or whether it was some Political Correctness offense such as racism or homophobia. Murder is murder. They are all horrible crimes and they all should be equally punished. The idea that more punishment is needed because the motivation for the murder violates Left-Wing PC principles is false and obscene. It is an insult to the families of the people who were murdered for the “lesser” non-PC motivations. It is saying that the lives of their loved ones are worth less. It is a violation of the expectation that the families should receive equal protection under the laws as provided by the 14th Amendment.

      Furthermore, these laws are providing the motivation for people to pull off Hate Crime hoaxes.

      As I said before, it will be a good day in America when all these “Hate Crime” legal provisions are struck down and discarded. If the concept of “Hate Speech” is tossed into the garbage can at the same time, then it will be even better!

      • TN_MAN – FWIW, I don’t buy into the hate crime BS either. I agree that crime is crime and there is no reason to criminalize the thought behind the crime. Many crimes already have an element of mailce in them. I was only making the point that, since a lot of folks DO believe in the idea of a hate crime, the attribution of a “rise” in such ‘because Trump’ is BS. Apologies if I wasn’t clear in my post. I thought about making this other point but didn’t want to go on for too long.

      • @ Tom in NC – “I was only making the point that, since a lot of folks DO believe in the idea of a hate crime, the attribution of a ‘rise’ in such ‘because Trump’ is BS.”

        I am sorry if I misunderstood your post. You discussed the supposed “Growth” in “Hate Crimes” so blandly that it did seem to me that you actually believed that they existed.

        I thought that way because the Left is so good at selling fantasizes and delusions to people. Think about it.

        The Left has people believing that climate change is going to destroy civilization in less then 20 years which conveniently ignores that life has existed on earth for about 4 billion years and that humans, as a species, have already lived thorough at least one ice age. That the only way to save us is to adopt the Left’s “Green New Deal” and ban air travel and cow farts.

        They have people believing that Communism/Socialism is the greatest thing since sliced bread even though it has ruined the economy of every nation that seriously tried it. The Left has people believing that the latest failure-example of Venezuela somehow does not apply.

        They have people believing that if everyone will just give up their firearms and turn their security completely over to an all-powerful central government, crime and murder will drop to historic lows and, in the words of the song, “peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.”

        They have people believing that President Trump is a Russian agent and that the Steele dossier is the gospel truth.

        They have people believing that Hillary Clinton has been defamed by an evil, Right-Wing conspiracy and that she is, in fact, an honest person and great leader.

        Compared to what the Left pushes, selling a belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny is Child’s Play. 🙂

        So, given how many Americans have been deluded by the Left, have gone insane and have lost all touch with reality, I could not dismiss that you might actually believe in this leftist “Hate Crime” concept. I am glad to know that you DO NOT buy into this crap!

  5. I would profoundly disagree. Just as so many people judged Trump supporters guilty when the story broke, now just as many people are judging Smollett guilty of staging a hoax, and the police are trying this man in the same public court.

    It’s up to the courts to deal with this situation, and decide who is guilty and who is innocent. It’s not right to play with someone’s future in places where the person can’t defend themselves.

  6. From the article: If Smollett is found guilty, he can certainly be credited with crafting a hoax that conformed with a narrative many on the left wanted to be true. And he can be further condemned for making it harder for real victims of real hate crimes — which have been on the rise the past two years — to be believed.

    This line, right here, is why I’m starting to think that filing a false police report alleging a “hate crime” should be prosecutable as a “hate crime” in and of itself.

    Smollett’s alleging of a “hate crime” supposedly committed by white, homophobic males wearing MAGA hats, is a race-, gender-, and ideology-based attack with FAR longer-lasting effects than Smollett’s own attack (even if it were true). It increases the race-, gender-, and ideology-based societal divide and justifies, however falsely, future attacks — both rhetorical and physical — against conservatives, especially white male conservatives.

    And that bears all the hallmarks of a “hate crime”.

  7. Tell people what they want to hear and they will accept it without question. That’s how fortune tellers stay in business even when their predictions (“You will marry a rich, handsome man”) never come true. And it’s why the media and politicians will jump on something like the Smollett case without waiting for the full story. If it fits The Narrative and it promotes The Agenda, it is Too Good To Verify.

    Legally, Smollett is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in court. That doesn’t mean that bloggers and Youtubers can’t comment on the case. It just means that the DA and defense attorneys may have to work harder to find and select unbiased jurors.

    I am skeptical of the claim that hate crimes are on the rise. As noted previously, it may just be that more such cases are getting reported, even if fewer are being committed. Also, definitions of “hate crimes” and “hate speech” are so broad and vague that they can mean anything that a prosecutor wants them to mean.

    And “hate crime laws” are a relatively recent concept. It may be that a case labeled as a “hate crime” in 2019 would have been classified and prosecuted as something else (murder, manslaughter, assault, vandalism) ten years earlier.

    Professional activists always need an issue to justify their sinecures. If there were no such thing as hate crimes, the SJWs would have to invent them.

    And, as we have seen over and over (Smollett, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Shaun King, Jalen Mitchell, Azhar Hussain, Kissie Ram, Dauntarius Williams, and Yasmin Seweid), they do invent them.

  8. A crime is a crime. What motivates the person to commit a crime is what differs, be it greed, hate (usually caused by fear of something you don’t understand) or psycopathic thrills. I agree, if a person commits murder it really doesn’t matter what motivated him. However, a person can express their opinion without spouting hatred for those with a different view. The problem is, the people are complaining about hate speech are spouting as much or more hatred than those with an opposing view

    • Stephen – “a person can express their opinion without spouting hatred for those with a different view”

      Indeed, that is what we hope that people will do. Harboring hatred for others is undesirable. Especially if the motivation for such hatred is prejudice. It is immoral to do so.

      However, I want to make one additional point. It is a lesson that history has taught us many times but which some people never seem to learn. It is this:

      A Nation cannot legislate morality.

      That is EXACTLY what the American Left is TRYING to do with their social engineering laws. They know that prejudice against other people is immoral. Most people agree with that on both the Right and the Left. However, the Left is not content with simply teaching people about Right and Wrong and trying to provide people with a moral center to their lives. Rather, they are determined to write their PC version of morality INTO THE LAW. They are trying to LEGISLATE morality.

      That is EXACTLY what hate speech and hate crime statutes are about. Punishing people because they harbor thoughts that are IMMORAL under the Left’s PC doctrine. It is an effort to punish “Thought Crimes”. We are seeing a modern version George Orwell’s novel, 1984, playing out in “Real Time”.

      That is EXACTLY what Alcohol Prohibition was about in the early part of the 20th Century. Drinking alcohol was considered an IMMORAL ACT and Prohibition was an effort to LEGISLATE it out of existence. The effort failed miserably, of course, and one would think that the lesson about legislating morality would have been learned for all time.

      That is EXACTLY what Firearms Prohibition (AKA Gun Control) is about in modern times. The Left considers owning and using Firearms to be an IMMORAL ACT just like drinking ALCOHOL was to an earlier generation. When the Left pushes for their Gun Control laws, they are attempting to impose their anti-gun version of MORALITY upon all the rest of us. They are attempting to LEGISLATE it.

      Therefore, the fatal flaw in all of these Leftist legislative efforts is, at its core, just this: They are efforts to (foolishly) impose their version of morality BY LAW.

      The American Left does not accept the premise that “One cannot legislate morality”. They never got that Memo!

  9. TN_MAN,

    I agree with everything you have written, except, “One cannot legislate morality.” That statement is overly broad and false. Maybe you mean that thoughts and beliefs of the heart cannot be controlled by laws. Maybe you mean that, in America, we want law-abiding people to have as much freedom as possible. We don’t want to police private morality. We don’t want to be Big Brother or a nanny state. We want people to be free.

    It is certainly possible to legislate morality. God did it through Moses when He gave ancient Israel the Tenach, or the Old Testament.

    • @Roger Willco – You raise a valid point. In my post, I do not define what I mean by the term: To Legislate Morality.

      First, let me point out that the purpose of the Law is not to teach the people morality. Instead, the purpose of the law is to define and enforce a CODE OF CONDUCT for the people.

      Some laws, such as the laws against murder, are indeed based upon a moral concept. It is the concept of “Thou Shalt not Kill”. The concept that unlawful killing of another human being is wrong and is immoral. A man can have the black heart of Satan and indulge in all sorts of immoral and impure thoughts. However, as long as he has the self-control to not act upon them, then he is a Good Citizen as far as the Law is concerned. The law should only concern itself with actions. It should not seek to punish Thought Crimes.

      However, other laws are based upon practical considerations rather than morality. For example, it is against the law to run a Red Light but doing so does not make one an immoral person. Rather, the law regarding red lights (Traffic Safety Devices) was simply developed to allow everyone to use the highway system fairly and safely. It is practical rather than moral.

      Why do people obey the law? It is because of the same dynamics. They obey the law for practical reasons such as they don’t want to be arrested, fined, jailed or else run over because they ran the red light. 🙂 However, the main reason people obey the law, especially laws based upon morality, is because the people agree with the moral concepts that underpin the law. Thus, they agree that the law is just and wise. Most people don’t abstain from committing murder because they are afraid of a life sentence or the gas chamber. Rather, the vast majority of people abstain from murder because they know, in their hearts, that murder is wrong.

      Laws that have the broad support of the people because they are practical or because the moral underpinnings are unquestioned, function well. However, one sometimes finds activist groups who have a moral position that is not broadly supported. Perhaps only half the people, maybe less, actually believe in this moral concept. Undeterred, the activists attempt to gain support of a slim majority (perhaps 51 to 55%) and then, with this slim support, write their moral concept into law. The problem is that the portion of the population that did not subscribe to this minority moral view-point feels under no obligation to obey laws which they think, with some justification, are being shoved down their throats.

      This is why Alcohol Prohibition failed. The Prohibitionists gained enough support to write their moral commandment: “Thou shalt not drink Alcohol” into law. However, these laws lacked true broad support and were, therefore, widely (even joyfully) disobeyed. This is why we see many of the anti-gun laws, passed in Blue States, be disobeyed. The gun-grabbers gained enough support to write the law but they don’t have the support of the people to obey it.

      If one is going to “legislate morality” and if one wants it to work, then one needs broad public support (85% or more of the adult population) for the underpinning moral concept.

      So, this is what I mean by “Not legislating morality”. I mean grabbing a bare 51% of the vote, and then shoving your moral views down the throats of the other 49% of the population, does not work. The Leftists have the 51% or more support in the Blue States and in the Government Deep State. They seem to think that is enough to shove their Left-Wing moral values down everyone else’s throats. They don’t have the broad support necessary to truly craft moral laws. They don’t care. They love their agenda and their ideology so much that they are proceeding anyway.

      Hopefully, this clarifies what I mean when I say that the American Left is trying to “Legislate Morality”.

  10. Police Chief Eddie Johnson’s comments were refreshing. He stood for what was right and true, even though he was speaking against a “brother.” Remember the black/white divide when OJ Simpson was acquitted?

    The Left is looking for a white, male, conservative, Trump voter, NRA member to go on a mass shooting spree. That story will be gleefully on the news for a month, and that shooter will be a representative of all of us “haters” out here. But when Muhammed attacks us shouting “Allahu Akbar,” we can’t jump to conclusions and condemn all members of the religion of peace.

    We had a black President for eight years, but no white racists assassinated him. America is filled with white racists, yet almost everyone in the world wants to live here. One million immigrants come here LEGALLY every year to be oppressed by white men. Illegal immigrants risk life and limb, disease and sex slavery to live in the country of the wicked white man. Everyone wants to live like Mighty Whitey. The house, the car, the freedom.

  11. “Don’t judge until you’ve heard both sides” is good solid advice. And I personally would also add:

    Wait until the dust has settled before making final judgement.

    And . . .

    Take accusations seriously, but always verify. (Especially if a story seems to fit “too” neatly into your world view.)

  12. I have to admit, that once I heard the two guys who attack Smollett were Black and wearing MAGA hats, I began a rush to judgment.