The Strange Case of Tommy Robinson

Last week, British new media journalist Tommy Robinson (ne Stephen Lennon) was taken into custody and summarily sentenced to 13 months in prison while he was live streaming outside of the Leeds Crown Court.





There is considerable confusion about the matter.  Robinson has a history of being a soccer hooligan who became active in nationalist politics, with an animus against radical Islam. Robinson's arrest was while he covered a Muslim rape gang which groomed its child victims.

Because Tommy Robinson was weary of Islamic influence in the UK, it is easy to leap to the conclusion that a police state is trying to shut down a dissenting voice from elite internationalists.  It may well be that Robinson was taken in on suspended sentence for contempt of court regarding coverage of a gang rape case in 2017 that was escalated by being in a scuffle with police.  Robinson fears that his 13 month sentence will effectively be a death sentence due to Muslim gangs in prison.

Robinson's arrest seems kind of reminiscent of what happened to the LA videographer in the wake of the Benghazi attack in 2012.  Use trumped up charges on a small fry to politically placate.

What should be truly disturbing to all freedom lovers is the injunction that the judge, Geoffrey Mason QC, ordered an Orwellian media blackout, enjoining the British press from reporting on it until after the conclusion of the child grooming case.

[C] Judge Geoffrey Mason watching Tommy Robinson arrest, Leeds Crown Court

Several European Parliament Members have called Robinson a political prisoner and demanded his release. It is puzzling that the public can not be informed of someone who has been convicted of a crime. Are Star Chambers back in style in England again? In the past, the Star Chamber supposedly took on prominent people.  Is it now to enforce political correctness or PC dhimmitude?

David Hogg on the March for Our Lives

There is a highly publicized March for Our Lives being held on the National Mall.  It was precipitated by the Parkland Florida School Massacre.  It was supposed to be a student led memorial with an emphasis on school safety, but it serves as a vehicle for professional progressives to push for gun control using unimpeachable students as their mascots. 

Progressive groups, like ex New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety, and even Planned Parenthood have been involved in bolstering and providing organization backbone for the supposedly student led March for Our Lives.  

Many celebrities, such as Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon have vowed to be there.  Wonder if they are bringing private security into the District of Columbia, which has extremely strict concealed carry laws? Even though Baltimore City Schools do not have enough money to heat some of the classrooms, Baltimore mayor Catherine Pugh is poneying up funds for six busses so that thousands of students can be bussed to DC for the political protest 

One of the survivors of the Parkland incident is David Hogg, who went from being an articulate student journalist who recounted the day's events to quite an outspoken activist for Gun Reform Now. Hogg even wondered "What if our politicians weren't the bitch of the NRA" in an anti-gun propaganda video.



These students seem happy to exercise their First Amendment rights to curtail the Second Amendment.  However, when it comes to safety, Hogg was chary about the new school rule that only clear backpacks would be allowed into school buildings because that might be embarrassing to girls who are menstruating.   OK, so vitiate the Second Amendment but kids need to express themselves and not feel embarrassed.

 During the one month nation wide memorial of the Parkland Shooting, some students were detained because they were off-message from Gun Reform Now (for example about protecting all lives, even the unborn). Many schools led the protests and would not countenance those who refused to choose sides. 

Living in the District of Calamity, one often experiencing citizens exercising their First Amendment right to free expression and petitioning their elected officials during marches on the National Mall.  But every January, hundreds of thousands of youths gather on the National Mall to try to save the lives of the unborn in the March for Life, which gets nary a peep of coverage from the media. Some Sacramento students, amongst others, have petitioned their schools to have a walk out to honor and protect life. It is dubious if the same standards will be applied as for the post Parkland protests 

These markers for the March for Our Lives clearly demonstrate that public schools have become centers for ideological indoctrination and progressive agitation rather than education or inculcating tolerance for a diversity of opinions. 

The bilious bloviations of a traumatized teen thrust into the spotlight (and does not know when to leave) ought to be taken in context, as well as the half baked public policy opinions. 

Frederick Douglass on Freedom of Speech

Is Barack Obama Really Trying to Bridge News Universes?

During the initial episode of David Letterman's new limited run program on Netflix "My Guest Needs No Introduction", former President Barack Obama laments the lack of a common baseline of facts for the news.

 In some ways, this echoes a theme that Mr. Obama emphasized in his BBC Radio interview with Prince Harry about finding common realities on the internet. And during the speech at the Dallas Police Shooting Memorial, then President Obama lamented political polarization stemming from news coverage.  

Yet is is hard not to appreciate Obama's implication that those watching Fox News are "way out there" vis-a-vis the Mainstream Media represented by  taxpayer supported National Public Radio. His quip served as a laugh line to the Netflix audience at City College, New York. Such a jibe will affirm the biases of coastal elites who cannot fathom how fly over country could vote for a guy like President Donald Trump.  But it inspires a broader question of what is news and what is the prudent way to discern truth on current events. 

Some have fantasized about having a group that evaluates the news for its truthfulness.  But as it has been tried by Politifact's Truth-o-Meter  and the Washington Post's Fact Check with the Pinocchio scale, it has proven to be skewed and lacking. 

It is repugnant to the First Amendment to contemplate having the government take a role in vetting media.  It is bad enough that social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are using "curating" newfeeds to avoid conservative stories deemed as "fake news" and algorithms which shadowbans opinions not in favor with the social media powers that be. 

Then there is the question of how to cover a story.  Recently, CNN launched an advertising campaign with the spot "This is an apple" touting "Facts First".   The Media Research Center's study of coverage of the first eight months of the Trump Administration was 91% negative stories. In another study, the MRC examined one day of coverage on CNN, when 92% of the airtime was focused on President Trump, and CNN used 96 critics and seven supporters to back up their coverage. That hardly seems like facts first or fair and balanced news.

A more difficult thing to detect is the news that the mainstream media chooses not to report. A concrete example is when undercover video exposed that Planned Parenthood clinics were selling baby body parts.  Network news did not give one second of coverage, probably because it sullied a cause with which the networks suits agree. No wonder why there is a populist outcry against "Fake News".

Another niggling aspect is what "news" mainstream media outlets choose to report.  It is interesting to see how much that makes it on a network nightly news is just recycled packages that were creating for fluffy morning news shows. ABC is notorious for cross promoting entertainment programming as news.  The Tonya Harding 20/20 episode seemed to give as much airtime to its affiliated journalists as the protagonists in order to hype a film poised for Best Picture for the Oscars, which will be broadcast on ABC.  One should expect that NBC's News will be chock full of Olympic feature stories (as it broadcasts the Winter Olympics in February) when it is not bashing the Trump Administration.

As a news junkie, it is laudable to seek out news sources which do not comfortably give "confirmation bias".  In addition, it is necessary to vet the reliability of news sources when considering stories.  However, it is dubious that President Obama wants to find a real "baseline of common facts".  His out of this world comment seems more inclined to smear those who do not buy into the line from the mainstream media, shaped by the likes of the Journo-list and then disseminated via papers of record, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, which then dictates the coverage in most of the rest of the media.

As much as one would like to believe that Mr. Obama is trying to bridge news consumption universes, this comes from a leader who gathered lawmakers around a table supposedly to work together on health care and then wanted to dictate terms.  It is likely that politically correct pressure about the consensus on the news would drown out minority opinions and counter facts.  So it would be like the pre-internet "fairness doctrine" days when there was little choice and the public could be simply swayed. 

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day

On this date in 1791, the Commonwealth of Virginia was the 12th State to ratify the ten amendments that were then incorporated into our Constitution.

 During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia , the framers were more concerned about how power would be distributed by the national government.  Some of the delegates were concerned that the Constitution did not spell out how the people would be protected from the government’s abuse of power.  So James Madison, the “father” of the Constitution and the author of the Federalist Papers, championed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, that was modeled after an English Bill of Rights as well as similar Bill authored by Virginia George Mason.

The original resolution presented to Congress included twelve amendments which were not as sharply focused on individual rights.  One provision involved the number of delegates per the population.  The other seemingly stillborn amendment involved Congressional compensation:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Although this amendment was not ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, this provision was ratified by 3/4ths of the states by Michigan in May, 1992.  Later it was discovered that the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s General Assembly had ratified it in its first month of statehood in 1792 but it had not been applied for 200 years.

As for the Bill of Rights:

• The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” But this also involves the right to assemble as well as the fundamental freedom of the free exercise of religion.

• The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.”

• The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners.

• The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.”

• The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury.

• The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.”

• The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

• The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.”

• The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.

These are not arcane relics of history.  Every day, Americans practice their freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.  Americans depend on access and the fairness of the judicial system. Our property rights can be challenged by eminent domain abuse.  And ultimately, citizens need to protect their right to bear arms–it’s not about hunting but the ultimate safeguard against the abuse of a tyrannical government.

[This piece originally ran on DCBarroco.US]

President Trump on Freedom

As President Trump commemorated the 2017 National Day of Prayer by signing Executive Orders protecting religious liberty, he noted where this fundamental first freedom is derived. 

UC Berkeley Bungles Free Speech Again

Just over a half century ago, the University of California Berkeley led the Free Speech Movement, which inspired many of the political and cultural changes that started in the 1960s.  Free Speech meant having tolerance for differing opinions and uncomfortable speech.

Today, Berkeley finds itself at the center of the AntiFa movement.  While academics, anarchists and progressive foot soldiers mou-mou the memes about free speech, their actions indicate ideological intolerance and tyranny. In February 2017, black clothed street anarchists rioted around the Berkeley campus to stop Alt-Right polemicist Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking.  


Progressives have also bragged about stopping "Radical Son" turned neoconservative David Horowitz from speaking because of burdensome security concerns and added costs to sponsors and limited the crowd.

Three groups invited Ann Coulter to speak at Berkeley on April 27, 2017.  The University Administration made all sorts of nigglesome demands, such as requiring expensive bonds for security, limiting the talk to students and even demanding that the event occur during the day.  As she was determined not to be the one to cancel, Coulter agreed to all of these "ridiculous"  demands, with the request that any rioting students be expelled.  Still Cal Berkeley Administrative offices sought to cancel the event.

Unlike Yiannopoulos and Horowitz, Ann Coulter is both an established agitating author who can make the television circuit.  So instead of just accepting Berkeley cancelling her speaking event, Coulter took to television to ridicule and challenge the imperial leftist Berkeley chancellor, vowing to go to campus anyways to speak.

After just one day of bad press, Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks backtracked,  In announcing that Coulter's speech could be rescheduled to May 2nd, Dirks wrapped himself around the rhetoric of the free speech movement, but did not specify the secure venue where the event would occur.   

This P.R. recovery move by the Berkeley Chancellor was too clever by half. In seeking to staunch the unflattering image, the date was moved to when there would be no classes held.  Moreover, because of the last minute switcheroo, additional expenses would be incurred.  In addition, Dirks did not check with the inconvenienced speaker.  For her part, Coulter claims that she is unavailable May 2nd and is going to appear anyways on April 27th. 

UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks 

UC Berkeley Chancellor Dirks was slated to resign in August, 2016 because of widespread criticism from the faculty for the way he handled a sexual misconduct claim and budgetary deficits, yet he still remained.  After besmirching Berkeley's reputation for being the bastion of the Free Speech Movement, one wonders why he still has a job. Furthermore, inquiring minds are interest on University of California Chancellor Janet Napolitano's perspective.

Barbara Boxer on Hollywood Free Speech