Posts Tagged ‘Datechguy's laws of media outrage’

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.

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.

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.

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:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

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.