Search Results

UGH: Dem Compares Trump’s Law-and-Order Crackdown to a KKK Lynching.

For the record, the KKK served as the Democrats’ shock troops. Now they use antifa and BLM. But the use of mob violence to get their way outside of our republican processes remains the same.

YEAR OF THE JACKPOT: Mathematician predicted violent upheaval in 2020 all the way back in 2012. “In his 2012 article, published in the Journal of Peace Research, he analyzed political violence, including riots, lynchings and terrorism, in the United States between 1780 and 2010. He found two patterns: First, a long trend of peace followed by rising violence that seems to span about 200 or 300 years, marked in this case by relative peace in the early 1800s, major upheaval in the mid- to late-1800s, and then peace again in the mid-1900s. Superimposed upon this long-term curve were oscillations that seemed to repeat approximately every 50 years. Violence peaked around 1870, 1920 and 1970. Extrapolate another 50 years and you land right smack on 2020.”

No, his name isn’t Potiphar Breen.

MARK THIESSEN: If Democrats Cared About Police Reform They Would Have Advanced Tim Scott’s Bill.

We saw how seriously congressional Democrats were taking police reform when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democratic leader, dismissed legislation introduced by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) as a “token, half-hearted approach.” For Durbin to question the seriousness and sincerity of Scott — a black man who has personally experienced police discrimination — was disgraceful. Scott said of Durbin’s comment, “to call this a token process hurts my soul.” (Durbin later apologized to Scott.)

Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described Scott’s bill as “trying to get away with murder, actually. The murder of George Floyd.” When asked if she would apologize, Pelosi said, “Absolutely, positively not” — though she claimed she had been referring not to Scott but to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Sure, she was.

What Democrats should be apologizing for was their shameful vote on the Senate floor Wednesday to kill Scott’s legislation — and with it any chance of passing police reform this year. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. . . .

If Democrats cared about getting something done, they would have allowed the Senate to move forward and sought to amend Scott’s bill on the floor. There was plenty of basis for compromise. Scott’s legislation had already incorporated a number of Democratic proposals, including: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to conduct a review of the U.S. criminal justice system; collecting data on use of force by police; barring the use of chokeholds by federal officers and withholding federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not similarly bar them; and withholding federal money to police departments that fail to report to the Justice Department when no-knock warrants are used. . . .

Indeed, Republicans offered to allow votes on as many amendments as Democrats wanted — something Pelosi has refused to allow House Republicans to do to the House police reform bill. Scott promised Democrats he would filibuster his own bill if they did not get votes they sought. As Scott explained in an impassioned floor speech, he even told Democrats he would vote to support some of their amendments, such as expanding the definition of chokeholds and collecting data not just on serious bodily injury and death but on all uses of force by police. “We’ll stay on this floor for as long as it takes and as many amendments as it takes,” he said. With Scott’s backing, some of those amendments would have gotten enough Republican support to pass — giving Democrats the real prospect of making significant changes to the bill.

Even if Democrats didn’t fully embrace the compromise bill the Senate eventually passed, they would have another chance to improve it in negotiations with the House. As anyone who grew up watching Schoolhouse Rock knows, the way a bill becomes a law is for the House and Senate to both pass their own versions of a bill and then negotiate a compromise they can put on the president’s desk. If, after all that effort, they still did not like the results of the House-Senate conference, then Democrats (who control the House) could still have refused to bring a final bill to the floor. But at least they could have claimed they made a real effort to reach bipartisan consensus.

But Democrats’ failure to even try this shows they were not interested in compromise. Scott says his Democratic colleagues told him “we’re not here to talk about that” and “walked out.” They voted not to even allow debate on his bill, which they knew meant police reform would not happen this year. That, Scott said, was a tragedy. “We lost — I lost — a vote on a piece of legislation that would have led to systemic change in the relationship between the communities of color and the law enforcement community.”

At a time when much of our country seems to be descending into chaos — with violence in the streets, autonomous zones being declared and mobs pulling down statues — Americans want their elected leaders to behave like adults, work together and get something done. Republicans put forward a good-faith effort to do just that. But Democrats apparently care more about using the issue to energize their base on Election Day than working with Republicans to enact police reform.

Related: Tim Scott on Senate Dems blocking police reform bill: ‘Pure race politics at its worst.’

“So, when you go piece by piece, with the only thing that you can conclude is [that] it wasn’t what we were talking about. It was who was talking,” he remarked. “And, not just me, Tim Scott, but who was talking was the Republican Party saying to minority communities, to underserved communities, to liberal-controlled communities like Atlanta and Minneapolis, Cleveland…We hear you. We see you. Here are reforms.’”

“We’re coming [in] after to fix their problems and that’s what the party, the Republican Party, has been doing for decades: fixing the challenges brought to people in liberal cities by liberal politicians,” Scott argued.

I mean, even Talcum X has figured out that “systemic racism” is a Democratic Party problem.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Joe Biden Owes Clarence Thomas an Apology.

In 1986, the year before Biden was lifted to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Antonin Scalia had been approved 98–0 by the Senate. There weren’t really any Supreme Court confirmation battles before then. A year later, in 1987, Robert Bork — who, Warren Burger, the former chief justice, claimed was the most qualified jurist he’d seen in 50 years — would be grossly caricatured by real-life sexual harasser Ted Kennedy, who warned that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids.” Thomas would be accused of being a puppet of his white colleagues, among other racist stereotypes, merely for his ideological outlook. In those days, hyperbolic statements from Senators were somewhat rare. Now they are a modus operandi.

To be fair to Biden, he was an exceptionally incompetent and indecisive chairman, easily cowed and unable to control the hearings. After promising to support Bork, he switched his vote. After promising to afford Thomas some semblance of due process, he presided over what the future justice famously called a “high-tech lynching.”

Biden owes the entire nation an apology — and do read the whole thing.

BUT HE WAS RAISED IN THE BLACK CHURCH OR SOMETHING: New Film Exposes Joe Biden’s Role in the ‘High-Tech Lynching’ of Clarence Thomas.

OFF SCRIPT: Joe Biden Apologizes for ‘Lynching’ Comment in 1998: ‘Trump on the Other Hand Chose His Words Deliberately.’

Biden forgot to stick to the script that Trump is a blowhard who always speaks without thinking.

But any narrative in a storm, I suppose.

THAT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE SHUT UP TIMES TEN: 10 Politicians Who Used ‘Lynching’ the Way Trump Did, and the Left Didn’t Care.

THE RETURN OF LINDSEY 2.0: ‘This is a lynching, in every sense’: Lindsey Graham says Trump’s impeachment description ‘accurate.’

THAT’S DIFFERENT, BECAUSE SHUT UP: Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: Words Can Hurt Wednesday Edition. “We are supposed to be scandalized by all of this because OMG RAAAAACISM and stuff but the outrage falls flat when you find out that it was the Democrats who got the ‘impeachment as political lynching’ narrative going over twenty years ago.”

That was different because shut up.

TRUMP USES PROVOCATIVE TERMS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PROVOKE:

Today’s doozy: Trump compared the Democratic attempts to impeach him over Ukraine to a ‘lynching’.

Sure enough, the media explainers did their job. Lynching, we are told by every wired copy monkey who has to file 600 words to their line editor, is a ‘racially charged/loaded term’ that refers to — here I quote the BBC — ‘historic extrajudicial executions by white mobs mainly against African Americans.’

The inevitable ‘backlash’ follows.  Cue pundits and politicos all agreeing that this sort of language from a president is ‘unprecedented’.

Yes, all the people who spent the last four years calling Trump a Nazi are suddenly getting the vapors over this “unprecedented” violation of civility.

UPDATE: Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons.

Why, it’s as if Trump and staffers researched this stuff before he dropped the L-word.

QED:

(Updated and bumped.)

IT’S RACIST TO CALL TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT A “LYNCHING,” BUT NOT WHEN DEMOCRATS SAID THAT ABOUT CLINTON IN 1998: You aren’t surprised, right?

 

WHISTLEBLOWER REQUIREMENTS RECENTLY AMENDED TO ALLOW HEARSAY: “I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

(Bumped.)

#JOURNALISM: 24 Hours Of Media Malpractice.

Late Tuesday afternoon, some conservatives on Twitter started grumbling about an article the Washington Post published that morning. The op-ed in question accused best-selling conservative author J.D. Vance of being racist, and otherwise tried dubiously to connect the dots between mainstream pro-life advocates and white supremacists. At a speech in July, Vance said the following: “Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.” Washington Post contributor Marissa Brostoff characterized the remark by saying, “Vance did not spell out exactly who was included in the word ‘our.’ He didn’t need to.” Her clear implication was that Vance was referring to the fact he only wanted to have white children. This would be news to Vance, since he’s married to a woman of color, and his best-selling “Hillbilly Elegy” ­– a movie version, directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard, is in post-production – is a very critical look at the mores of poor white Americans.

And Vance did, in fact, spell out exactly what his pronoun referred to. A couple of sentences earlier in his remarks, which Brostoff didn’t bother to read closely, he makes it clear he’s referring to all Americans. Low birth rates are a serious concern in Western countries for many reasons, including the need to sustain liberal welfare policies, which have nothing to do with racism.

The Post printed a correction after all this was pointed out, but that doesn’t answer the question of how it got published in the first place. Once upon a time, accusing people of racism was a serious matter. If you were going to do it in print, editors would demand it was sufficiently backed up by evidence. But if Brostoff is to be believed, “my editor suggested that Vance’s comments might be added to the list of evidence being marshaled” and “we both did our due diligence in putting them in context.” Perhaps it’s telling that this op-ed appeared in a section of the Washington Post’s website called “Post Everything,” a title that, based on many other ill-advised opinion pieces that have run under that heading, appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole point of journalism is that you don’t post everything – you make sure it’s fair and accurate first.

A few hours after the controversy over Brostoff’s article flared up, on Lawrence O’Donnell’s 10 p.m. MSNBC show he delivered a blockbuster report that a Russian oligarch co-signed loans Trump took out. O’Donnell apparently kept repeating “if true” in regard to the assertion throughout the segment.

And that’s just the beginning. Related: J.D. Vance just the latest right-thinker to be smeared by leftist lies.

If you want to understand the power of social media in weaponizing and accelerating the left’s attack on truth and ­decency, look no further than The Washington Post’s false accusation this week that J.D. Vance, author of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” is a closet white supremacist.

This is the anatomy of a Twitter lynching, a good man’s reputation strung up and beaten to a pulp. In the impressionistic half-life of ­social media’s attention span, the damage can never really be undone.

Marissa Brostoff’s column trying to link the pro-life movement to white nationalism was stupid enough to have been rejected by a proper newspaper, but it is astonishing that the smear against Vance made it through any honest editing process.

Her thesis is that pro-life conservatives oppose abortion not because they believe every human life is sacred, but because they fear that abortion will accelerate the demographic “replacement” of white people by nonwhite immigrants.

It’s a stupid argument, considering black babies are aborted at five times the rate of white babies in America, as even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute ­admits.

Brostoff arrives at the point only in her final paragraphs, in what amounts to a rhetorical drive-by shooting of Vance, whom she introduces as her sole example that white-supremacist ideas have become mainstream conservative thought.

She’s a lefty hack boosting a political agenda, without principles or morals. Or, in other words, a typical journalist today.

WAS IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. PRO LIFE EQUALS LYNCHING? Warning from the Washington Post: Liberals Find Alabama So ‘Embarrassing.’ “The Washington Post on Tuesday made it pretty clear: The paper isn’t a big fan of conservative Alabama. Writer Karen Heller penned a 2500 word essay citing all the liberals embarrassed by the state. The story somehow connected the south’s horrific history of lynching with the newly-passed pro-life legislation.”

ESCAPE FROM BARBARISM: Asia Bibi arrives in Canada after leaving Pakistan: Christian woman freed last year after spending eight years on death row for blasphemy. “Blasphemy is a highly inflammatory issue in Pakistan, where even unproven accusations of insulting Islam can spark lynchings. Human rights activists say blasphemy charges are frequently used to settle personal scores.”

I GUESS THEY HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THE CONFEDERATE STATUES AS COVER FOR STUFF LIKE THIS: Report: UNC women’s basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell accused of making racist remarks. Though to be fair, there’s nothing inherently racist about nooses, though somebody apparently decided a few years ago that nooses always and only refer to lynchings, a claim that is very much at odds with actual American history and culture.

ILLITERATE AND DISHONEST — SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT: Biden’s Attack On ‘White Man’s Culture’ Is A Mix Of Historical Illiteracy And Dishonesty. “The former vice president still owes Clarence Thomas an apology.”

Those who demand acts of contrition over “English jurisprudential culture,” seem to have a problem with ideals of blind justice and due process that stop us from sacrificing people to the whims of an aggrieved mob. Biden’s transgression against progressivism, as far as I can tell, was affirming to Thomas during the Hill hearings that, “from the beginning and at this moment, until the end, the presumption [of innocence] is with you.” It wasn’t true.

Though it’s quite puzzling why the former vice president laments the “white” cultural evils of American jurisprudence when mentioning his role in the Thomas Supreme Court hearings. Perhaps confessing racial guilt is merely a form of ritual self-flagellation these days. Then again, it was Biden, with the assistance of a bunch of other white men, helped smear a black man with an impeccable record and no corroborating evidence of wrongdoing simply because he held the wrong kind of views. It was to Biden that Thomas was responding when he famously called the hearings a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”

If anything, Biden should be apologizing to Thomas.

It’s never too late to say you’re sorry.

ILHAN OMAR’S MEDIA COLLABORATORS: With the help of willing collaborators in the media, Omar and her supporters have managed to turn her antisemitic comments about Jews buying Congress’ loyalty to Israel into a referendum on the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC. So much so that the New York Times has this headline today:  “Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is Aipac Too Powerful?”

Let’s pause to recall what actually happened, as detailed here.  Key lines:

The context of the controversy, in other words, was not a debate about a specific Israeli policy, nor about the general influence of AIPAC, but about a leading Republican calling out two leftist Democrats for comments that were widely perceived to be anti-Semitic, and for which one of the Democrats had already apologized.

So the anti-Semitic implications of Omar’s initial tweet are rather clear: ‘[House Minority Leader] McCarthy isn’t criticizing me because it’s an obvious political move for a Republican to criticize anti-Semitism among Democrats, but because he’s been bought off by Jewish money. And, moreover, that calling out anti-Semitism in this particular context constitutes loyalty to a foreign country.’

She then tried to save herself by suggesting that she wasn’t referring to Jewish money in general, but specifically to AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby group [which, btw, does not donate money to candidates]. And in fact she partially succeeded in redirecting the debate to one over AIPAC’s influence.

Meanwhile, next up in the Times: Northam’s KKK Costume Raises the Question: Was Lynching Really So Bad?

VIRGINIA CLOWN SHOW UPDATE: Virginia’s Fairfax compares himself to lynching victims. “When he finished his five-minute impromptu speech, stunned senators sat in awkward silence. Fairfax, who is black, has been accused by two women of sexual assault. Both of the alleged victims are African American.”

REVIEW OF OLD YEARBOOKS REVEALS THAT the past was a different place with different standards.

THE BOSTON HERALD EDITORIALIZES ON SMOLLETT AND THE MEDIA: Alleged Chicago hate crime hoax a bad look for many.

As Jussie Smollett’s account of his alleged assault falls apart, it is important to note that politicians, the media and influential voices did their best to fan the flames of outrage, based on nothing but the dark premise that conservatives and Trump supporters are evil.

It is astounding that so many reputable people took Smollett’s fantastical account seriously. Certainly, hate crimes based on race and sexual orientation are a very real thing, but the details surrounding this particular episode centered around a lampoonish representation of a Trump-era bigot.

It was a flimsy yarn from the outset, which only became more precarious with each passing day. That didn’t stop those most deeply invested in the narrative of Evil Trump to jump into action.

Presidential hopefuls Cory Booker and Kamala Harris each labeled the supposed attack a “modern-day lynching,” with Harris adding that, “We must confront this hate.”

Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, “This is a sickening and outrageous attack, and horribly, it’s the latest of too many hate crimes against LGBTQ people and people of color. We are all responsible for condemning this behavior and every person who enables or normalizes it …”

Joe Biden tweeted, “What happened today to @JussieSmollett must never be tolerated in this country. We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts. We are with you, Jussie.”

It wasn’t only those with presidential aspirations who weighed-in, Democratic-Socialist superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez railed against news accounts that qualified their reporting. “There is no such thing as ‘racially charged,’ She tweeted. “This attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack … It is no one’s job to water down or sugar-coat the rise of hate crimes.”

Another freshman congressman, Rashida Tlaib, tweeted, “The dangerous lies spewing from the right wing is killing & hurting our people.”

Not to be outdone, Hollywood notables also reacted as expected. Director Rob Reiner tweeted, “The horrific attack on Jussie Smollett has no place in a decent human loving society. Homophobia existed before Trump, but there is no question that since he has injected his hatred into the American bloodstream, we are less decent, less human, & less loving. No intolerance! No DT!”

The media has comported itself badly as well. Almost immediately after getting the Covington Catholic story so wrong, many in the news industry immediately accepted the Smollett story as true.

Astonishingly, a Washington Post writer named Nana Efua Mumford wrote this: “If Smollett’s story is found to be untrue … The incident would be touted as proof that there is a leftist conspiracy to cast Trump supporters as violent, murderous racists. It would be the very embodiment of ‘fake news.’ And that reason, more than any other, is why I need this story to be true.”

In other words, Trump supporters are violent, murderous racists. That dark premise is a lie, fake news and untrue. Let us hope one half of the country can correct their horrifically jaded view of the other half before we lose ourselves.

Hope is not a plan.

HELL, I’M JUST SURPRISED SHE WAS ASKED AT ALL: Kamala Harris is terribly awkward when asked about Jussie Smollett. “She giggled in response to the idea of lynching!

STACY MCCAIN: Bearing False Witness: The Case of Jussie Smollett.

Anyone with common sense could see that Jussie Smollett’s story didn’t add up, but evidently none of the Democrats running for president in 2020 has any common sense. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris used almost identical language in proclaiming Smollett the victim of “an attempted modern-day lynching.” Former Vice President Joe Biden declared: “We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts.” Smollett was the victim of “the latest of too many hate crimes against LGBTQ people and people of color,” said New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, adding: “We are all responsible for condemning this behavior and every person who enables or normalizes it.” Other leading Democrats joined this chorus of condemnation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the “racist, homophobic attack… an affront to our humanity,” while New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez asserted that the attack on Smollett was indicative of “the rise of hate crimes.” No Democrat more explicitly pointed the finger of blame than California Rep. Maxine Waters who said “this is happening for a reason.… It’s coming from the President of the United States. He’s dog-whistling every day.”

If the incident which provoked all these denunciations proves to be a hoax, however, will any of these Democrats apologize? Will they suffer any actual consequences for being so disastrously wrong about what happened to Jussie Smollett? No, don’t be silly. Liberal journalists won’t ask Booker, Harris, Biden, or other Democrats to explain why they were so easily deceived. Indeed, the media are already trying to spin the story to rescue Democrats. CNN’s Brian Stelter claimed Saturday that the real problem is that “random websites” had “weaponized” the story, whatever that means. Stelter went on to say of the Smollett hoax that “the motive here is still a mystery at the heart of the story.” Except it’s not really mysterious: Smollett has repeatedly declared his hatred of President Trump, and what better way to damage the president than to frame Republicans for a fake hate crime? And liberal journalists were eager to act as Smollett’s accomplices, as Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow remarked Sunday: “This is absolutely about the media and their constant desire to prove Orange Man Bad no matter how implausible the story.”

Read the whole thing.

WHAT IS IT WITH DEMOCRATS, BLACKFACE, AND THE KKK? Blackface lynching pictures from UNC Chapel Hill 1979 yearbook emerge – the same year NC Gov Roy Cooper graduated – just days after HE called on Virginia Governor to resign over racist photo.

On the one hand, this is pretty thin gruel: “Aside from the shot where they use a lighting fixture with a noose, the two-page spread for the frat shows a woman kissing a man’s cheek and they too have their faces blacked up in the black-and-white pictures. There is no suggestion that Cooper is in any of those photos but they feature in his 1979 yearbook.”

On the other hand, if he were a Republican the press would consider this totally relevant. Remember when the press went crazy over a “racist rock” that might have been on a ranch Rick Perry’s family once leased? So live with it, Dems.

ROGER KIMBALL: Radical evil, and the online lynching of a kid from Kentucky. Will journalists apologize if their portrayal of the Covington students vs Indian Elder incident turns out to have been wildly wrong?

Total non-sequitur of a question. When is the DNC-MSM ever wrong?

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): When do they ever apologize? (Except to offended lefties, that is).

But some better people are apologizing:

Maybe the reason journalists assume that James O’Keefe’s videos are deceptively edited is that deceptive editing is the ordinary course of business for them.

ANOTHER UPDATE (FROM GLENN): More good people apologize:

This guy hasn’t apologized yet, though. People on the right need to be more skeptical of this kind of thing, rather than rushing to jump on the “we’re better than that” (by which they really mean “I’m better than that”) bandwagon. Lefties rely on that to give momentum to their hit pieces. Instead, hold back and wait for facts to develop. Often — possibly more often than not — the facts will show things to be different than they first appeared.

MORE (FROM GLENN):

Also, I see that NRO’s big dump on the Covington boys now returns a Page Not Found. Why doesn’t it return an apology for jumping the gun?

Or maybe it should just go to this Kyle Smith piece: Nathan Phillips Lied. The Media Bought It. Including NRO. But the media didn’t just buy it. They were co-conspirators.

Plus, from the comments: “Anyone who thinks these recent attacks on these Catholic boys and on the Knights of Columbus aren’t geared to the next Supreme Court opening is kidding themselves.”

Stand up to bigotry: Support Amy Coney Barrett!

Also from the comments: “Amazing that this story occurred just 24 hrs after the BuzzFeed/Cohen fiasco with its obligatory non-stop MSM impeach-o-rama. Gellman amnesia at its finest. And when you see the Catholic hierarchy rush to throw these innocent kids to the wolves, you begin to understand the dimensions & persistence of the Church’s pedophile crisis. They are not the faithful & reliable stewards of our children they claim to be. CYA > justice.”

NRO needs a full, sincere apology here, and better behavior in the future. I mean, otherwise what do they bring to the table? CNN will already call people on the right bigots for free. NRO piled on the people they should have been protecting, out of a cowardly reflex to assume the worst and isolate the people the media were attacking. They should have looked into the story first, rather than relying on the word of people they should have known were untrustworthy. It was just two days ago that CNN was hyping the Buzzfeed “scoop.” Gateway Pundit is all over this story — and more creditably than NRO.

MORE STILL (FROM GLENN): An Apology From Rich Lowry of NRO: “I deleted my original tweet and we also took down a strongly worded post by my colleague Nick Frankovich that relied on the incomplete video. It’s another reminder — even for an old hand like me — that it’s best not to make snap judgments and to wait for all sides of a controversy to have a chance to be heard.”

You can’t trust what the likes of CNN and Buzzfeed say about people on the right. You absolutely need to do your own due diligence before piling on.

And for the record, here’s the archive version of the now-deleted NRO piece by Nicholas Frankovich The Covington Students Might as Well Have Just Spit on the Cross.

Related: The Media Wildly Mischaracterized That Video of Covington Catholic Students Confronting a Native American Veteran.

A bogus story about Trump supporters. Who could imagine such a thing?

Plus:

Related:

They deserve an apology. People who owed them fairness and consideration chose virtue-signaling instead.

WELL, DEMOCRATS ARE HISTORICALLY THE PARTY OF LYNCHING AND MISOGYNY, SO. . . ‘GOP’ Doll With Marsha Blackburn Sign Found Hanging From Tree in Tennessee.

OVER AT P.J. MEDIA: The Lynching Of Mark Judge. “When you were accused, it was news but it wasn’t true. Now you’re cleared — that’s true, but it isn’t news.”

ACTUALLY, CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS A LOT TO GAIN: Just for starters, there’s the fact Anita Hill’s $1 million book advance after her 1991 Clarence Thomas “high-tech lynching” would be worth at least $1.8 million, and quite possibly a lot more than that. I may catch holy hell for pointing these things out, but there’s also potentially immensely lucrative speaking fees and don’t forget the likelihood of a Hollywood movie rights deal.

MAYBE WE DO NEED KAMALA HARRIS’S FEDERAL ANTI-LYNCHING LAW: Right-Wing Protester Brutally Beaten By Angry Leftist Crowd.

Related: Mass. Independent Senate Candidate Shiva Ayyadurai Punched In Mouth By Elizabeth Warren Supporter.

OBVIOUSLY, SHE’S MOTIVATED BY RACISM AND FEAR OF A STRONG BLACK MAN: Jill Abramson Reboots Her ‘High-Tech Lynching’ of Clarence Thomas. “She kicked up dirt to give the impression of scandal, which would not have been necessary had she actually uncovered proof of one. Meanwhile, she unintentionally presented stronger evidence of her sham than of the scandal she hoped to create.”

JILL ABRAMSON REBOOTS HER ‘HIGH-TECH LYNCHING’ OF CLARENCE THOMAS: “Feel free to question Abramson’s timing and her subjectivity. Indeed, Abramson admits she is targeting Thomas again solely because the timing is proper, and the target high-value.”

THE INSTA-WIFE: Was Dan Johnson’s Death a High-Tech Lynching?

THERE’S NOTHING SOCIAL ABOUT IT: Former Facebook exec says social media is ripping apart society.

Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.”

He went on to describe an incident in India where hoax messages about kidnappings shared on WhatsApp led to the lynching of seven innocent people. “That’s what we’re dealing with,” said Palihapitiya. “And imagine taking that to the extreme, where bad actors can now manipulate large swathes of people to do anything you want. It’s just a really, really bad state of affairs.” He says he tries to use Facebook as little as possible, and that his children “aren’t allowed to use that shit.” He later adds, though, that he believes the company “overwhelmingly does good in the world.”

If you’re on social media for anything more serious than puppy GIFs or sharing pictures of your adorable kids, you might want to back away from the keyboard and/or smartphone.

NOT SOMETHING TO ASPIRE TO: Clemson’s Colin Kaepernick moment.

Jaren Stewart, a college junior at Clemson University in South Carolina, has found himself at the center of a campus-race-and-sexual-assault-fiasco.

Stewart is the sitting Vice President of Clemson University’s Student Government Association [SGA]. He made national news because he faced impeachment for allegations of voyeurism and trespassing during his time as a resident assistant (RA).

According to an illegally leaked incident report filed last spring, Stewart, who is black, entered students’ residence without permission and stole food and cleaning supplies. And it gets worse: Stewart allegedly “would enter…while women were changing their clothes” and refused to leave when asked.

Stewart maintains that the complaints against him are “exaggerated.” The embattled VP said that racial animus at the South Carolina school triggered the impeachment controversy. And that the report that detailed his alleged misconduct was leaked in retaliation for his refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at a meeting of student senate. In an interview with the Anderson Independent Mail Stewart was defiant:

“This is a social lynching…There’s a deeper systemic issue in which people are choosing what they want to hear, choosing what they want to believe exists and that’s why sitting for the pledge was so important,” he said.

But Clemson SGA senators said that the question before the governing body is one of fitness, not race. Stewart “abused his power” as an RA when he violated his female residents’ privacy.

Others have speculated about why the university was and remains tight-lipped about the damaging accusations, or why Stewart didn’t receive a harsher punishment for his misconduct. According to USA Today, school officials suspended Stewart from residential duties for eight-days and he was not invited to return to the program this fall. He was also issued a no-contact order.

There are other reasons to doubt Stewart’s “Jim Crow” explanation: under the guidelines set in the infamous “Dear Colleague” letter in 2011, Stewart’s actions were plainly sexual harassment. And if we consider reports that black male students are disproportionately sanctioned for sexual misconduct, he should consider himself lucky he wasn’t expelled.

Lucky for him Obama’s out and Trump’s in.

PATRICK POOLE: Pakistani Police Beat Christian Student To Death In Latest Sectarian Lynching.

LINCOLN AND EISENHOWER COULD NOT BE REACHED FOR COMMENT. This Is CNN: Guest Rules the GOP ‘Are’ Neo-Nazis, ‘Old Slave Owners’ Ignoring Lynchings.

EUGENE VOLOKH: Can accusation of lynching be ordered taken down as a supposed threat of lynching?

I agree that “Lynching is our paradigmatic image of private racist violence against African American,” but here it is being used to accuse Brummer of figurative racist violence — and of literal racist adjudication — not to threaten Brummer. The “tragic history and present-day reality of racism” can’t justify, I think, categorically labeling images of lynching associated with a person as threats, when the person is accused of being the perpetrator of lynching (not urged as a target for lynching).

Yeah, I wish I were amazed that someone got a court to order this taken down, but I’m not amazed by much anymore.

BERKELEY HATEWATCH UPDATE: Vandal Calls for Beheading, Lynching of Berkeley College Republicans. Also, as far as I know, despite “investigation” of the Milo riots, I don’t believe anyone has actually been prosecuted for the violence there. “A College Republicans spokeswoman also said that members had been ‘pepper sprayed, sucker-punched and verbally and physically assaulted for voicing their opinions and beliefs’ on campus. And in March, members caught another student destroying one of the College Republicans’ signs, posting video of the vandalism to their Facebook page.”

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Federal Judge Blasts Unprofessional Behavior of Justice Department Lawyers. “Here we go again. Another federal judge has scalded the unprofessional conduct of Justice Department lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division. The first time it was perjury. After that, it was unethical conduct in a trial against New Orleans police officers. Now it’s unprofessional behavior and bigotry toward the South in a federal court trial challenging Texas legislative districts. . . . It’s behavior Attorney General Jeff Sessions will notice and should address.”

Quoth the court: “It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings. And the DoJ lawyers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here, just in time, to rescue the state from oppression, obviously presuming that plaintiffs’ counsel were not up to the task.”

And J. Christian Adams comments: “This attitude is in keeping with what Hans von Spakovsky and I have reported here on the pages of PJ Media. An ideological hiring campaign took place during the Obama years where Every Single One of the lawyers hired into the Civil Rights Division were committed leftists. When the DOJ Inspector General recommended that hiring criteria be changed to eliminate this perceived bias, then Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez rejected the recommendation.”

Plus: “Here’s my bet: Voting Section management hasn’t alerted political managers of this misconduct in court. If they have, Section managers will downplay the behavior or defend it. Or, Section managers will have done utterly nothing to reprimand the person involved. They will recommend absolutely nothing be done. That’s why the misconduct occurred—because a culture of misconduct and ideological zeal took hold—from hiring decisions to litigation. Whichever lawyer was responsible should be removed from all future litigation.”

Nope. They should be fired for fostering such a climate of bigotry and hate. And Attorney General Sessions should replace them with attorneys who will enhance the office’s diversity. We need a Civil Rights Division that looks like America!

IF THEY DID THIS WITH OBAMA IT WOULD BE RACIST: In NYC — Protests include a Trump effigy hanging from a noose.

Remember, nooses used to have all sorts of connotations, from the Old West of spaghetti westerns like Hang ‘Em High to generalized populist revolt. But it was decreed a while back that the only possible connotation of a noose nowadays is racist lynching.

So why are anti-Trump protesters so racist?

SHE POKED THE BEAR: Alaska Reporter Who Quit On Air in Support of Marijuana Legalization Facing 24 Years in Prison.

Charlo Greene went viral two years ago when she quit her reporting job on-air after advocating the legalization of marijuana. “Fuck it, I quit” she said, signing off for the last time.

Greene, an Alaska native, moved from journalism to marijuana legalization advocacy. Voters approved a ballot measure that year to legalize marijuana, but now Greene is being criminally prosecuted for her marijuana-related work, The Guardian reports.

After her resignation, the Alaska Cannabis Club, which she revealed to be the founder of in her last on-air segment, appeared to become a primary target for law enforcement authorities in Alaska, who conducted six undercover purchases and two raids of the club, which gave members marijuana in exchange for donations, and two raids in a five month period after her resignation. Marijuana legalization went into effect in February 2015. Greene, who spoke with The Guardian, faces eight drug-related charges that could cost her up to 24 years in prison, and described her experience as a “modern day lynching.”

As our drug laws move towards decriminalization and legalization, there ought to be pardons for nonviolent offenders like Greene.

GOD FORBID THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED EVENHANDEDLY: Lynching law created to protect blacks used against protester.

California Black Lives Matter organizer Jasmine “Abdullah” Richards became the first black person in the United States Tuesday to be sentenced for what, until last year, was considered attempted felony lynching.

If her appeal fails, Richards — who is currently serving part of a 90-day sentence — will face three years of probation and a year of anger management under a state anti-lynching statute originally created to protect blacks, not penalize them.

Well, okay then.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Mizzou Race Relations Committee Releases Series of Anti-Racism Videos for ‘White People:’

The University of Missouri’s Faculty Council Committee on Race Relations released a video series this week that aims to educate students and faculty about racism on campus, Mizzou’s student newspaper, the Maneater, reported.

Committee member Craig Roberts, a Mizzou plant sciences professor, said that the target audience of these videos will be white faculty, the lessons will be applicable for the while community as a whole.

Roberts explained in an email to the Maneater that white people, including himself, are not as likely to detect racism because they do not experience it first-hand, and white faculty often downplay the degree to which racism affects the community.

“White people tend to see racism in terms of lynching, physical abuse, bullying and other products of hate,” Roberts said. “Racism is more than the overt, blatant, extreme incidents.”

As Ace of Spades quips, “And now you can view Mizzou’s handy guide to What a Racist Your Child Is. Plus — there’s still that one-in-five-will-be-raped thing! So you know: Definitely send your kid there.”

But fortunately, to coin a phrase, A New Hope has emerged from a most unlikely source. “Melissa Click just (accidentally) outed the campus PC Gestapo,” Carrie Lukas writes at the New York Post:

Click now claims her own dismissal is racially charged, meant to send a message that blacks aren’t supposed to stand up against whites. Yet she also notes that being “a white lady” makes her an “easy target.”

In other words, Click believes that although bigotry pervades the university’s liberal halls, administrators are too cowed to fire anyone who isn’t white, making her supposed white privilege also her biggest handicap.

Click is suing the school for allegedly failing to follow the rules governing firings in cases like hers. Her charge may have merit. But where was Click when Wolfe was being similarly sacrificed for political expedience?

As Lukas writes, “It’s long been evident that something is seriously wrong with American higher education, but Click’s case ties key pieces of the puzzle together: the absurdity of the racial- and gender-grievance game on college campuses, the politically motivated inquisitions that serve as university justice and the increasingly useless nature of so much of what’s studied.”

Is there nothing she can’t do?

MONICA CROWLEY ON THE LEFT’S LONG WAR AGAINST CLARENCE THOMAS — A new HBO drama reprises the left’s ‘high-tech lynching.’

Related: Kerry Washington Defends HBO’s ‘Confirmation’: “It’s Not a Propaganda Movie”

Except that it is.

ERIC S. RAYMOND: This May Be The Week The “Social Justice Warriors” Lost It All. “The hacker community has spoken, and it put its money where its mouth is, too. Now we know how to stop the SJWs in their tracks – fund what they denounce, make their hatred an asset, repeatedly kerb-stomp them with proof that their hate campaigns will be countered by the overwhelming will of the people and communities they thought they had bullied into submission. I’m proud of my community for stepping up. I hope Sir Tim Hunt and Brendan Eich and Matt Taylor and other past victims of PC lynch mobs are smiling tonight. The SJWs’ preference-falsification bubble has popped; with a little work and a few more rounds of demonstration we may be able to prevent future lynchings entirely.”

REMEMBER, SOCIAL-JUSTICE WARRIORS ARE THE ANGRY PEASANTS WITH PITCHFORKS, MASQUERADING AS THE VOICES OF MORALITY AND REASON: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: How Maryland ‘Neomasculinity’ Blogger Roosh V Became an International ‘Pro-Rape’ Villain; A case study of collective catharsis through call-out culture and moral panic as meme.

The bottom line, though, is that “not a single woman has been hurt by me,” says Roosh. “I’ve never been accused of rape, I’ve never been charged. No follower of mine has read something of [mine], and then gone on to rape, because I know if they did hurt a woman it’d be all over the news.”

The whole thing calls to mind two more male writers: Matt Taibbi, probably best known for his work at Rolling Stone, and Mark Ames, who now writes for outlets such as Pando. The pair worked together at an English-language newspaper in Russia in the late ’90s and subsequently published a book about the experience called The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia. Within this book, there are scenes of the mostly-male Exile editors sexually harassing their administrative staff—going so far as to tell secretaries they must sleep with them to keep their jobs—and Ames threatening to kill his pregnant Russian girlfriend if she doesn’t get an abortion. The men never claimed it was satire or nonfiction. In explaining, Ames was prone to saying things like “Russian women, especially on the first date, expect you to rape them.”

Despite this, Taibbi and Ames have continued to flourish as leftist writers, and as far as I know no feminist groups or Canadian mayors have tried to prevent either from visiting the country. Perhaps they’re just lucky to have come of age in a different Internet era. Perhaps it helps that their politics and progressive credentials are otherwise right. . . .

As much as we might hate to admit it, Roosh is a journalist. His main site, Return of Kings—one of the hubs of what’s sometimes called the “Manosphere”—and its forums get two million visits per month. As neither Roosh nor any writers or readers of Return of Kings were under suspicion of criminal behavior, it is at the very least bizarre that law-enforcement officials would feel the need to comment and keep an eye on their gathers. And it’s probably the kind of thing we should condemn, those of us interested in freedom of speech, press, movement, and association.

People will object that these groups were “pro-rape” meetups. But outside media misinformation, there was nothing about the proposed happy hours to suggest they had anything to do with rape.

Well, if he were — seriously, not satirically — writing “pro-rape” manifestos in the name of Islam, his right would be zealously protected by the same people who subjected him to a high-tech lynching.

And, meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who has actually been accused of rape, is out campaigning for Hillary.

DAVID MASTIO: Flint lead crisis getting a tad overdone: Before hitting the panic button, remember we are winning the war on lead poisoning. “Flint’s 8,000 children have not had their lives destroyed. Jesse Jackson can roll up his crime tape. Michael Moore can go back to promoting his latest film. Taken as a whole, in fact, Flint’s kids are better off than the previous generations of Michigander kids in at least one important way. Even after Flint’s disaster, the city’s children have far less lead in their blood than their parents or grandparents did at the same age.”

Yes, instead of lynching the Democratic town leaders who let this happen, it’s worth keeping things in perspective.

STEVEN HAYWARD: A Modest Proposal For Princeton And Yale.

Richard Epstein reviews the sorry record of Woodrow Wilson over at Ricochet, but concludes correctly that it is a stupid idea to start stripping names off of university programs. But if the prissy Princetonians insist on renaming the Woodrow Wilson School for Public Affairs, here’s a modest suggestion: Rename it for Warren Harding!

Harding was the anti-Wilson in all of the ways the campus protesters could want. He pardoned most of the political dissenters Woodrow Wilson had jailed during World War I, especially the socialist firebrand Eugene Debs, whom Harding then invited to the White House, saying afterward that he rather liked Debs. He also proposed civil rights protection for blacks, in a speech in Birmingham, Alabama, that drew boos and jeers from the mostly Democratic audience. “I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizens,” Harding said in the speech; “We cannot go on, as we have gone on for more than half a century, with one great section of our population . . . set off from real contribution to solving national issues, because of a division on race lines.” Harding also urged Congress “to wipe out the stain of barbaric lynching from the banners of a free and orderly, representative democracy,” but southern Democrats made sure this suggestion died swiftly in Congress.

His support for advancing the interests of black Americans went beyond mere words. He appointed blacks to senior positions in the Departments of Labor and Interior, lobbied his entire cabinet to more blacks, and over 100 blacks to lower ranked administration posts—a high number for the time, especially after Wilson had purged blacks from government jobs and bestowing permanent civil service status of their white replacements a few years before.

So how about it Princeton?

And yet historians — well, until a month or two ago — have been much more positive about Wilson than about Harding.

SORRY, MEDIA, YOU WON’T DESTROY BEN CARSON:

At the end of the day, what are we left with? An admirable though imperfect man who rose from abject poverty to the pinnacle of one of the most challenging professions in the nation — all while never forgetting his roots, maintaining grace and humility even as he earned riches and honors. In fact, his life story — and his character — would make him one of the most inspiring Americans ever to occupy the Oval Office. But he’s a direct threat not just to leftist narratives regarding race and class but also to the leftist stranglehold on the black vote. And for that reason alone he must be destroyed.

A “high-tech lynching” is again underway, but if recent history is any guide, the Left’s attempt to strike down Carson will only make him stronger. The media can launch its attacks, but it cannot change the fundamental facts: Ben Carson is a good and decent man, an American hero.

Related: The Audacity of Myth: How the Media Ignored Obama’s Lies About His Own Biography and Memoir.

REMEMBER, SHE ALSO HAD A WHITE HOUSE CONNECTION: Woman who introduced Rolling Stone to Jackie leaves UVA.

Emily Renda, the sexual assault activist who introduced Rolling Stone to “Jackie,” a woman who lied about being gang-raped, has left the University of Virginia.

Her reason for leaving is the fallout from the now-discredited Rolling Stone article. The unraveling of the article, coupled with the attacks on Renda in the media, have led to a year of “all hell and hopelessness.” Renda has decided to go to law school far away from U.Va., and told Vanity Fair that she has abandoned her work with sexual assault survivors.

“I don’t want to say it’s been the worst year of my life, but it has been the worst year of my life,” Renda said.

Renda met Jackie in the spring of 2014, while working as an activist. Jackie told Renda her story of being gang-raped by fraternity members at a party (parts of this story appeared differently in the story Jackie told Rolling Stone). Renda would later share Jackie’s story during testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, omitting Jackie’s name.

Well, it was a pretty bad year for the falsely accused frat guys, too, who suffered a sort of University-sanctioned lynching.

More on the White House connection here:

Emily Renda, a UVA advocate for sexual assault victims, has been identified as the person who helped steer the author of the Rolling Stone article to the student identified in the story only as “Jackie” who said she was gang-raped by seven university students. Ms. Renda had previously met with the White House Task Force to Protect Students Against Sexual Assault, a committee created by President Obama. The administration says it sought her input as a “stakeholder” on the issue. . . .

The U.S. Department of Education has declined to answer Freedom of Information requests for telephone logs and other information that might show to what degree, if any, the White House orchestrated the rape story at a time when it was pushing hard to expand the role of the federal government in combating sexual violence on college campuses. The Institute on Government and Media Integrity has asked Congress to further inquire.

So far, I don’t think UVA is talking, either. In fact: Review of Univ. of Va.’s debunked gang rape to remain under wraps.

An independent review of the University of Virginia’s handling of a student’s gang rape allegations will not be publicly released because of privacy concerns.

The review focuses on the Charlottesville school’s handling of an alleged gang rape that was reported in graphic detail by Rolling Stone magazine. The piece was later retracted.

In an email from the school’s Freedom of Information Act officer late last month, U.Va. rejected a request from The Associated Press to publicly release an executive summary of the review.

The officer cited a letter from a U.S. Department of Education official who said its release would violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

How convenient for all concerned. Was the official Catherine Lhamon, by any chance?

ON 9/11, LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHICH COUNTRIES HAVE A REAL ROGUE COP PROBLEM, AND WHY: “Last week, the Supreme Court of Pakistan took the unusual step of criticizing the police’s failure to intervene in the case of a couple, Shahzad and Shama Masih, who were murdered by a lynch mob in Kot Radha Kishan, Punjab, in November 2014. Five police officers stood by and did nothing while a frenzied mob murdered the Masihs,” Robert Spencer writes. “Why didn’t they step in and stop the lynching? Because the Masihs were Christians, accused of blasphemy.”

As Spencer adds, “Most troubling, the problem of cops protecting Muslim perpetrators has been occurring in Western countries, too.”

See also: the British town of Rotherham.

RADLEY BALKO On The ‘Terrifying’ New Threat to Free Speech in America.

Radley Balko, the award-winning reporter and author of Washington Post’s opinion blog The Watch, shares his thoughts on the biggest threats to free speech in America today, specifically increased public demand for protection from offensive speech and government crackdowns on extremism.

Balko called the idea that the government should police offensive speech “an impossible standard to enforce.”

“I mean, I’m offended by the notion that I can’t write something that offends people,” said Balko.

“At some level, some government official is going to have to decide whose claims to offense are legitimate,” he said. “We need to live in a society where you can say whatever you want, whenever you want as long as you’re not causing direct harm or violence to someone.”

As for the biggest free speech threats Balko thinks Americans face today:

“Despite the fact that we have a pretty robust First Amendment, there is a threat of government sort of cracking down on what’s seen as extremism,” said Balko.

“That’s terrifying when you think about it. [If] you look back on U.S. history, and the people who were considered extremists in their time, you’re talking about abolitionists, right? You’re talking about people who advocated for desegregation, [and] people who advocated against lynching,” Balko said of the types of views now widely accepted.

Yes, but this time the authorities are right about everything.

JUST YESTERDAY I WAS WARNING ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING: Livid over crime, some Venezuelans resort to mob justice.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones.

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

That August night, as locals say is common, three people had sneaked into Valencia’s Kerdell residential block. In past such break-ins, thieves have made off with car tires, batteries and radios.

But this time, one resident spotted the trespassers and alerted other neighbors, according to the witnesses.

“‘Kill him, give it to him,’ they shouted,” recounted Trina Castro, 82, in this once middle-class and peaceful area that is now plagued with garbage and graffiti. One reads: “Get ready, thief, here we burn you. Regards, Kerdell.”

“I tried to stop the mob but the level of violence endangered anyone who opposed them,” said another witness, asking to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

The unconscious man, who was not torched, was evacuated and is now in the local hospital’s trauma ward, according to witnesses and Valencia’s police. The police said they had no further details and did not identify the man.

A source at the Interior Ministry, who asked to remain anonymous because the minister is the only person authorized to speak on the record, said it does not usually comment on cases under investigation. Venezuela’s state prosecutor’s office said it had not issued a statement on the incident.

When civil society breaks down, and people no longer believe in the rule of law, this is the kind of thing that happens.

GOOGLE IS HONORING IDA B. WELLS TODAY. I don’t know if she was a Republican like Harriet Tubman, but she was another gun-toting black woman:

Surveying the landscape in the summer of 1892, Ida B. Wells advised, that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Black home.” This was no empty rhetorical jab. She was advancing a considered personal security policy and specifically referencing two recent episodes where armed Blacks saved their neighbors from lynch mobs.

Twice within one month, lynch mobs formed, one in Paducah, Kentucky, another in Jacksonville, Florida. Square in their sights were hapless Negroes who were on track to the same fate as many others before them. But in both cases, the mobs were thwarted by armed Blacks, though the record demands some speculation about how many of their guns were actually Winchester rifles. Other similar episodes in Mississippi and Georgia confirmed for Ida Wells the importance of armed self-defense in an environment where the idea of relying on the state for personal security or anything else was an increasingly absurd proposition.

For Wells and for many of her contemporaries — the “New Negroes” of the late nineteenth century — the Winchester Rifle was a potent rhetorical tool. . . .

But the Winchester was more than just a rhetorical tool of militant journalists. In Memphis, after the lynching of Ida Wells’ good friend Tom Moss, Reverend Taylor Nightingale pressed his congregation all to buy Winchesters as a practical response to the surrounding threats. And from the Black settlements of the west comes the report that “the colored men of Oklahoma Territory mean business. They have an exalted ideal of their own rights and liberties and they dare to maintain them. In nearly every cabin visited was a modern Winchester oiled and ready for use.”

Read the whole thing. Maybe put her on the $10 bill?

UPDATE: Sure enough, Ida B. Wells was a Republican.

WHAT JUST HAPPENED ON THE GOLAN HEIGHTS? The Background of a lynching.

EXPUNGING WOODROW WILSON FROM OFFICIAL PLACES OF HONOR. As I indicated in my post yesterday, I support Governor Nikki Haley’s initiative to remove the Confederate battle flag from government buildings. Now that we are expunging the legacy of past racism from official places of honor, we should next remove the name Woodrow Wilson from public buildings and bridges. Wilson’s racist legacy — in his official capacity as President — is undisputed. In The long-forgotten racial attitudes and policies of Woodrow Wilson, Boston University historian William R. Keylor provides a useful summary:

[On March 4th, 1913] Democrat Thomas Woodrow Wilson became the first Southerner elected president since Zachary Taylor in 1848. Washington was flooded with revelers from the Old Confederacy, whose people had long dreamed of a return to the glory days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, when southern gentlemen ran the country. Rebel yells and the strains of “Dixie” reverberated throughout the city. The new administration brought to power a generation of political leaders from the old South who would play influential roles in Washington for generations to come.

Wilson is widely and correctly remembered — and represented in our history books — as a progressive Democrat who introduced many liberal reforms at home and fought for the extension of democratic liberties and human rights abroad. But on the issue of race his legacy was, in fact, regressive and has been largely forgotten.

Born in Virginia and raised in Georgia and South Carolina, Wilson was a loyal son of the old South who regretted the outcome of the Civil War. He used his high office to reverse some of its consequences. When he entered the White House a hundred years ago today, Washington was a rigidly segregated town — except for federal government agencies. They had been integrated during the post-war Reconstruction period, enabling African-Americans to obtain federal jobs and work side by side with whites in government agencies. Wilson promptly authorized members of his cabinet to reverse this long-standing policy of racial integration in the federal civil service.

Cabinet heads — such as his son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo of Tennessee – re-segregated facilities such as restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. In some federal offices, screens were set up to separate white and black workers. African-Americans found it difficult to secure high-level civil service positions, which some had held under previous Republican administrations.

A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

The novel “The Clansman” by Thomas Dixon – a longtime political supporter, friend and former classmate of Wilson’s at Johns Hopkins University – was published in 1905. A decade later, with Wilson in the White House, cinematographer D.W. Griffith produced a motion picture version of the book, titled “Birth of a Nation.”

With quotations from Wilson’s scholarly writings in its subtitles, the silent film denounced the Reconstruction period in the South when blacks briefly held elective office in several states. It hailed the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as a sign of southern white society’s recovery from the humiliation and suffering to which the federal government and the northern “carpetbaggers” had subjected it after its defeat in the Civil War. The film depicted African-Americans (most played by white actors in blackface) as uncouth, uncivilized rabble.

While the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People publicly denounced the movie’s blatant appeals to racial prejudice, the president organized a private screening of his friend’s film in the White House for the members of his cabinet and their families. “It is like writing history with lightning,” Wilson observed, “and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

Here is the exchange between Wilson and Trotter:

Mr. Monroe Trotter. Mr. President, we are here to renew our protest against the segregation of colored employees in the departments of our National Government. We [had] appealed to you to undo this race segregation in accord with your duty as President and with your pre-election pledges to colored American voters. We stated that such segregation was a public humiliation and degradation, and entirely unmerited and far-reaching in its injurious effects. . . .

President Woodrow Wilson. The white people of the country, as well as I, wish to see the colored people progress, and admire the progress they have already made, and want to see them continue along independent lines. There is, however, a great prejudice against colored people. . . . It will take one hundred years to eradicate this prejudice, and we must deal with it as practical men. Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation.

Mr. Monroe Trotter. It is not in accord with the known facts to claim that the segregation was started because of race friction of white and colored [federal] clerks. The indisputable facts of the situation will not permit of the claim that the segregation is due to the friction. It is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness, doing so even through two [President Grover Cleveland] Democratic administrations. Soon after your inauguration began, segregation was drastically introduced in the Treasury and Postal departments by your appointees.

President Woodrow Wilson. If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me. . . . Your tone, with its background of passion.

Mr. Monroe Trotter. But I have no passion in me, Mr. President, you are entirely mistaken; you misinterpret my earnestness for passion.

A swell guy, eh? After resigning from the Socialist Party to support Wilson, W.E.B Dubois was appalled at Wilson’s racist policies:

President Wilson’s initial policy measures were so stridently anti-black, Du Bois felt obliged to write “Another Open Letter to Woodrow Wilson” in September 1913. Du Bois was blunt, writing that “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that every enemy of the Negro race is greatly encouraged; that every man who dreams of making the Negro race a group of menials and pariahs is alert and hopeful.” Listing the most notorious racists of the era, including “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman,** Du Bois wrote that they were undoubtedly encouraged since “not a single act” or “a single word” from Wilson “has given anyone reason” to believe that he will act positively with respect to African Americans citing the removal of several black appointees from office and the appointment of a single black whom was “such a contemptible cur, that his very nomination was an insult to every Negro in the land.” Altogether the segregationist and discriminatory policies of Wilson in his first six months alone were judged by Du Bois to be the “gravest attack on the liberties” of African Americans since Emancipation.

In a tone that was almost threatening Du Bois wrote the president that there exist “foolish people who think that such policy has no limit and that lynching “Jim Crowism,” segregation and insult are to be permanent institutions in America.” Pointing to the segregation in the Treasury and Post Office Departments Du Bois wrote Wilson of the “colored clerks [that] have been herded to themselves as though they were not human beings” and of the one clerk “who could not actually be segregated on account of the nature of his work” who, therefore, “had a cage built around him to separate him from his white companions of many years,” he asked President Wilson a long series of questions. “Mr. Wilson, do you know these things? Are you responsible for them? Did you advise them? Do you know that no other group of American citizens has ever been treated in this way and that no President of the United States ever dared to propose such treatment?” Like Trotter later Du Bois ends by threatening Wilson with the complete loss of black votes for any of his future electoral quests or that of his Democratic Party. Du Bois relied on questions to hammer home his point. “1. Do you want Negro votes? 2. Do you think that ‘Jim Crow’ civil service will get these votes? 3. Is your Negro policy to be dictated by Tillman and Vardaman? . . . “

(**As Justice Thomas notes, Democrat Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina was the author of the earliest campaign finance “reform,” the Tillman Act that barred corporations from contributing directly to federal candidates.)

In response to these outcries, in 1914, Wilson told The New York Times, “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.” It would be a valuable educational experience today to correct this mistake, and the historical record, by having a candid conversation about the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson. And racism was not his only sin. The Wilson administration prosecuted and jailed many antiwar activists for sedition, including Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs for having made an antiwar speech.  (Debs was later pardoned by Republican President Warren Harding.) 

No doubt there are others whose names should also be expunged. But because of his record of official racism and betrayal,Wilson’s name should be first on any such list. Those who oppose its removal from government buildings should explain exactly why whatever principle of tolerance they apply to so extreme a purveyor of racist policies as Wilson should not be applied equally to memorials to other historical figures as well.

RELATED: Historian Paul Rahe on Progressive Racism:

Wilson, our first professorial president, . . . was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites. With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.

STILL MORE on The Menacing Mr. Wilson:

Wilson’s racist views were hardly a secret. His own published work was peppered with Lost Cause visions of a happy antebellum South. As president of Princeton, he had turned away black applicants, regarding their desire for education to be “unwarranted.” He was elected president because the 1912 campaign featured a third party, Theodore Roosevelt’s Bullmoose Party, which drew Republican votes from incumbent William Howard Taft. Wilson won a majority of votes in only one state (Arizona) outside the South.

What Wilson’s election meant to the South was “home rule;” that is, license to pursue its racial practices without concern about interference from the federal government. . . . But “home rule” was only the beginning.

UPDATE: When Will The American Political Science Association Stop Giving The Woodrow Wilson Award In Honor of Noted Racist Thomas Woodrow Wilson?

[Cross posted at The Volokh Conspiracy]

THE NEEDLE AND THE DAMAGE DONE: Woman who helped launch the current uproar over sexism in tech is sorry.

In 2013, Elissa Shevinsky wrote an article titled “That’s it, I’m finished defending sexism in tech.” The article was based on her concerns that a major tech expo would open with a presentation with an app called “Titstare,” which, as the name implied, allowed users to take photos of themselves staring at women’s breasts.

Shevinsky had been in the tech industry for a decade at that point, and said she had put up with sexism all the time. She concluded her article by writing that one of the solutions to the problem was to get more women in tech.

Her article received 40,000 views and was shared around the web, helping to spark a debate about the lack of women in the tech industry, a debate with the notable accomplishment of making a grown man — a comet scientist — cry on live TV because the shirt he was wearing offended some.

Because of the movement she helped create, Shevinsky has been described as a “social justice warrior” — a usually derogatory term applied to those who engage in hostile arguments in the name of righting a perceived social injustice.

Shevinsky is now sorry for whatever role she played in creating all of this outrage and silliness. She’s sorry, she writes in her new book, Lean Out, and she adds that her initial position was “flawed.”

“I’m glad to come out in ‘Lean Out’ and say that my original essay — the one that has been the foundation for people assuming that I am [a social justice warrior] — was deeply flawed,” Shevinsky told the Washington Examiner. “I do see sexism and gender issues, a culture war, in Silicon Valley, but the knee-jerk responses (recruit more women! attack the men!) are not the answer.”

Do tell.

Related: Why the Left Waged the #WaronNerds: They’re Losing the Oppression Olympics.

There is no obvious answer. Indeed, the obvious facts seem to fly in the face of explanatory power, in just the same way it does when one sees an unrepentantly patriarchal religion with more than a few troubling inclinations toward medievalism being defended by the Left. Feminists, for instance, have spearheaded much of the sneering and hysterical censoriousness where popular nerd pastimes like comic books and video games are concerned. All this despite the fact that most nerds are hardly the obvious examples of “rapey” masculinity that, say, UVA frat boys might be (though the author takes pains to note, similar accusations are slander in their case as well).

In fact, as the ever excellent liberal author Scott Alexander notes, nerds are the absolute psychological polar opposites of rapists. That a movement designed to protect women from the most ungallant members of society would start with a group about whom the stereotype is that they run around talking and acting like unshaven medieval knights is odd, to say the least. True, there is a degree to which this species of man can be found in the sphere of pickup artistry as well (yet another feminist bette noir), but there, too, it’s not immediately obvious why they’d start here. Say what you like about pickup artistry, but at least it’s about winning enthusiastic sexual consent from its targets, which presupposes the necessity of consent in the first place. Not exactly something you’d expect from unapologetic rapists.

Dig beneath the surface, however, and you find two very compelling explanations for the #WaronNerds. The short version is that it is simply a manifestation of cynical, bullying cowardice combined with emotivist, envious resentment. The long version? Well, read on for the first part.

In the visceral and terrifying musical Parade, written about the Leo Frank lynching, a yellow journalist enthusiastically describes how he will play on the fears of his audience to drum up readership by attacking Frank, or the “little Jew from Brooklyn with a college education.”

“So give him fangs, give him horns
Give him scaly, hairy paws
Have him drooling out the corner of his mouth
He’s a master of disguise
Check those bugged out creepy eyes
Hell, that fella’s here to rape the whole damn South!”

Sam Biddle, know thyself.

The comparison between today’s feminist rape lynch mobs and those of the Jim Crow era has been made before, and is apt.

Also: The Media Is Losing The War On Nerds.

ASHE SCHOW: No, there is no ‘rape lobby’ trying to keep sexual assaults from being investigated.

Salon (because of course) has published an article titled “Fraternities plan to lobby Congress to prevent campus rape investigations.” The website’s Twitter account called the fraternities a “rape lobby.”

The article claims that the lobbying group, FratPAC, is trying to “make it more difficult for colleges and universities to investigate sexual assault allegations.”

The inference, of course, is that fraternities are trying to make it easier to rape.

What the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee (note that it represents sororities as well) actually wants is for the American justice system, which has the training and expertise to investigate felonies like rape, to do its job before colleges and universities become caught up in political witch hunts.

FratPAC also wants universities to stop overreacting to accusations of sexual assault by suspending all Greek activity when an accusation comes from a single fraternity — like what happened at the University of Virginia following a now discredited gang-rape allegation.

These are both commonsense requests that, outside of the activist cult and supporting media, are not seen as extreme or crazy positions.

But to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who actively refers to one of her constituents as a “rapist” even though he was exonerated by a campus investigation, these requests are “completely backwards.”

Kirsten Gillibrand is the Ben Tillman of the feminist lynching culture. She happily victimizes innocents for political gain, and she does it without shame. Of course, Tillman was a Democratic Senator too.

PROF. JOHN BANZHAF IS WEIGHING IN ON THE OKLAHOMA SITUATION:

For Racist Speech – Educate College Presidents, Not Students
There Simply is no Exemption to the First Amendment for “Hate Speech”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 16, 2015) – At the University of Oklahoma, all members of a fraternity, including many who did not even participate in the private singing of a racist song, were summarily evicted from their dwellings, even though virtually all legal commentators addressing the issue have recognized that, in the absence of a clear and present danger, even disciplining those who led the singing is a clear violation of their constitutional rights for which the university and its president could be held legally liable.

Likewise, the University of Maryland is apparently considering disciplining a student for sending an email to a handful of other students in which he expressed his sexual preferences in women based upon their race, and used some vulgar words. That’s also strange, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, because it is not illegal, even in a public ad or notice, to specify the race, ethnicity, and gender of a desired roommate, so why would expressing such preferences regarding a much more intimate association, and doing it in a strictly private email, trigger a major campus investigation.

For these and other “transgressions,” many are arguing that there should be mandatory educational programs – what others have called indoctrination – for all incoming students (or at least for fraternity members). But perhaps what is really needed is educational programs for college presidents, deans, and other administrators who either don’t understand or fully appreciate not only the legal protections offered to students under the First Amendment, but also that academic freedom obviously includes the right to articulate ideas which are very unpopular with the majority views at a university.

Singing songs in praise of apple pie and motherhood, or sending emails expressing preferences for sexual partners who are pretty or smart, obviously don’t need the protection of the First Amendment nor guarantees based upon academic freedom, explains Banzhaf. Rather, the guarantees of Free Speech and academic freedom are expressly established to protect speech to which most in a community very strongly object, find abhorrent, reprehensible, etc.

It may be the official view of a university – to the extent that a university, and not its individual members, has official views – that persons of all races have equal abilities, that there is nothing wrong with engaging in homosexual acts, etc. but individual students in our free society have a right to disagree and, especially in private among those with similar views, to express them.

Banzhaf, who has himself brought many successful legal actions against discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, gender, etc. notes that the proper remedy for “bad speech” is not to punish those who engage in it – especially in private – but rather to overwhelm it with “good speech,” but not indoctrination.

At Oklahoma, the president’s actions have opened the institution and its president up to law suits in federal court, seeking not just damages, but also attorney’s fees. . . .

These causes of action include violation of rights to Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution, violation of their rights to Due Process also guaranteed by the Constitution, violation of the procedural protections guaranteed by the university’s own “Student Rights and Responsibilities Code,” and legal action under any local laws protecting people from summary evictions from dwellings.

Virtually all legal authorities who have spoken out agree that a state school cannot expel students for even racist or hateful statements – “there is no hate speech exception to the U.S. Constitution” – even if the speech mentions lynching, and especially if the speech occurred in private.

Indeed.

HIGH-TECH LYNCHING: Ohio students want to ban fraternity based on anonymous social media posts.

THE SMELL OF DESPERATION: Pro-Hagan Flier Uses Lynching Image, Warns Of ‘Obama’s Impeachment’ If Democrat Loses.

EUGENE VOLOKH: UC Santa Barbara Vice Chancellor issues statement supporting free speech.

Here’s a statement sent around to UCSB students by Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, in the wake of the prosecution of UCSB Prof. Mireille Miller-Young for stealing and destroying a protester’s sign, and assaulting the protester.

The statement does speak out strongly in favor of free speech, which is good. It also doesn’t mention Prof. Miller-Young, whether by name or behavior, which strikes me as harder to justify. The letter urges people not to “adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior,” an odd way of expressing things when the letter was obviously prompted by an incident that led to criminal theft, vandalism, and assault charges. Perhaps the university thought a condemnation of theft and violence would be superfluous, but would it? See, for instance, this “Support and Be in Solidarity with UCSB Professor Miller Young” petition. Or perhaps the university thought the request that students not “lash out” (however “satisfying” that might be) would be enough, though again that seems pretty generic given the incident that indirectly prompted the letter.

But beyond that, note the dismissive language about, for instance, how “outsiders” and “evangelical types” come to “create discord” and “promote personal causes and agendas.” (What exactly does the word “personal” mean there, by the way?)

Would such a letter come out about outside activists coming to, for instance, argue for race-based affirmative action? For legalization of illegal immigrants? For greater protection for abortion rights? Would the university condemn the “discord” and “conflict” these “outsiders” bring with their “personal causes and agendas”? Would it condemn gruesome images of lynchings, war victims, people who died in the desert trying to cross the border illegally, women killed by unsafe illegal abortions, or animals killed in allegedly inhumane slaughterhouses as “distressing and offensive”? Would it advise people to “ignore” the “provocative and offensive” speech, because “the visitors will hate that”? Maybe it would, but I doubt it.

So do I. Plus, from the comments:

UCSB is a public university. It’s job is to educate the public and it is funded by the public. The idea that they are a closed community with superior ideas and principles and that those who are not enrolled there and who do not share their view are “outsiders” is appalling. This is a prime example of “othering” that the left is always criticizing – except when they do it.

And they do it a lot. Plus: “Why is he writing a letter to the students? It is the faculty that appears to need the lesson on the 1st amendment.”

ROGER SIMON: The PC Lynching of Phil Robertson.

Related: Ink From The Leftist Squid. Yeah, it’s all about distracting from the ObamaCare debacle. Plus: “The goal is, therefore, not to highlight an area of disagreement, but to make people who want to avoid aggression step back a bit from those who aren’t so timid.” Punch back twice as hard, but don’t get distracted.

BILL WHITTLE: Afterburner: The Lynching.

BURN THE WITCH! “Swarm Cyber-Shaming” In The SFWA. “Given the prevalence of academic jargon from Cultural Studies or other Studies departments in their comments, I imagine a goodly number of the criticizers on the SWFA discussion boards and the broader Internet are either university instructors or possessors of an advanced degree from one of those programs. For many individuals under the age of forty who have been through the university system, mau-mauing may seem normative, or at least unremarkable. . . . The virtually thoughtless piling on is perhaps the most appalling. So many of the criticizers whose comments I have come across admit they haven’t even read the columns in question. Once the ball of shunning and shaming got rolling, hundreds of onlookers, alerted by social media, jumped on the bandwagon, attracted by the enticing glow of participating in shared moral outrage.” It’s a high-tech lynching.

If this account arouses your sympathies, why not buy a book from Mike Resnick and/or Barry Malzberg? And I suspect that the real “radioactive aura” is more likely to attach to the SFWA and the journals in question.

JAMES TARANTO: Sex, Lies and the War on Men: The rights of the accused are under vicious attack.

All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday’s article, a “war on men.” Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the “war on women” and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something? If the answer is yes–and we’d say it is–then either the same is true in our case or the sexes aren’t equal. (Select one or both of the above.)

We can take the abuse. In fact, in this instance we delight in it, not only because we see the humor but because it proves us right.

But the underlying subject matter is far from funny. The objective of these ideologues is to destroy the lives of men. . . . This appetite for punishment regardless of facts, this contempt for the rights of the accused, is worthy of a lynch mob. That is an inflammatory analogy, but we employ it advisedly. The victims of lynching were not infrequently men accused of sexual violations.

Read the whole thing.

TEJU COLE: Why Is Lynching So Common In Nigeria? The mob happens when people don’t trust the state to provide justice.

EMPTY CHAIRS AND THE INTELLECTUAL EMPTINESS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:  So a guy in Colorado decides to pull an Eastwood and hang an empty plastic lawn chair in a tree.  Admittedly in bad taste because it evokes symbolism of lynchings.  And while the guy may be a real jerk (I don’t know), this is classic political speech fully protected by the First Amendment. In the chair owner’s words, “The current administration in Washington is an empty chair,” Jacobsen said. “They just aren’t doing their job for America.”   Now the progressive political correctness crowd is calling it “hate speech” and trying–in typical fashion–to bully him into taking it down.

THIS IS LOOKING MORE AND MORE LIKE A LYNCHING: Detective in Zimmerman case said he was pressured to file charges.

Telling the FBI that he was concerned that people inside the police department were leaking information, Serino cited Sgt. Arthur Barnes, officers Rebecca Villalona and Trekelle Perkins “as all pressuring him to file charges against Zimmerman after the incident,” an FBI report said. “Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges.”

The summary of Serino’s statement does not mention the race of the officers who allegedly pressured him, but sources told The Miami Herald that Barnes and Perkins are black, and Villalona is married to an African-American man. All three, the source said, had been called in by their supervisor and questioned about leaking information in the case.

A request Thursday evening to the Sanford Police Department for comment about Serino’s statement went unanswered. . . . Records released Thursday show that Sgt. Barnes, a 25-year veteran of the department, told the FBI that he believed the black community would be “in an uproar” if Zimmerman was not charged. “The community will be satisfied if an arrest takes place,” the FBI quoted him saying.

Related: Zimmerman seeks new judge in murder trial.

The Florida man charged with second-degree murder in the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin asked for a new judge in his case on Friday, accusing the current judge of bias.

Lawyers for George Zimmerman filed a motion requesting that Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester withdraw from the trial.

Zimmerman alleged in the filing that Lester made “gratuitous” and “disparaging remarks” about him during a July 5 bond hearing and offered “a personal opinion” in the case.

“In doing so, the Court has created a reasonable fear in Mr. Zimmerman that this Court is biased against him and because of this prejudice he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial or hearing by this Court,” the motion said.

I think that Zimmerman’s lawyers feel the tide is turning.

UPDATE: Steven Den Beste emails: “It’s reminding me of the Duke LaCrosse case. That one ended with the prosecutor getting disbarred for gross misconduct.” Yes, and he did a small amount of jail time, though not nearly enough. Then he went bankrupt.

POLITICO’S SHRINKING PAINS: Politico’s traffic is down from last year, and it’s an election year. They lost the trust of a number of people on the right last year, so they’re getting fewer looks, and fewer links.

RON RADOSH: The Evidence in the Trayvon Martin Case is Released, and George Zimmerman is Vindicated. Well, there was clearly a fight, and Trayvon Martin had drugs in his system. “The main point is that for all those who jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman had attacked Martin because he was black, and that it was a racially motivated crime, have some apologizing to do.”

More here.

The report neglects to mention that in the 911 tape, George Zimmerman reported to the police dispatcher that Martin seemed suspicious to him because it seemed Martin was “on drugs or something.”

Like the injuries to Zimmerman, the prosecutor’s affidavit does not mention that Zimmerman’s suspicion about Martin was confirmed by the autopsy. As I noted a few weeks back, it just asserts that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. A disgrace.

It’s just like the old days — a bunch of Democratic politicians and their media lackeys lynching a black man.

UPDATE: Further thoughts from Prof. Jacobson.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom Maguire on drugs. Er, well, on whether Trayvon was actually high at the time.

TOM MAGUIRE: Zimmerman Case – Keeping Hate Alive At The Times. They’re really pulling out all the stops to ensure the lynching of a black man, aren’t they?

BOB OWENS: Daily Beast Columnist Politely Calls for George Zimmerman’s Lynching.

#NARRATIVEFAIL: Police: Trayvon Martin Slammed Zimmerman’s Head Into Sidewalk Several Times.

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

It seems as if people might have waited for more information before commencing the lynching. (Via JWF.)

UPDATE: Reader David Horwich writes:

IMHO, what’s going in in the WH these days is really, really bad poll numbers. How else can one explain an investment in clearly polarizing issues like picking a fight with both the church and Rush Limbaugh, race-baiting with Trayvon, a flirtation with an advocacy of gay marriage, Stalin-esque striking down of voter ID laws, et. Al. The softness in numbers with the black population must really be stark, otherwise, why bring this stuff up? There’s no upside with independent voters with any of these issues.

It does seem that way — a pre-election period in which Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan have high profiles doesn’t seem optimal for an allegedly post-racial Presidency. But perhaps they feel that it’s better to have people talking about absolutely anything other than gas prices, the debt, and ObamaCare.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Trayvon Martin Case Heading Toward Political Abyss.

Meanwhile, as evidence of how far we’ve come from Obama’s 2008 promises, a reader emails: “Maybe. Just maybe….all this continually more violent rhetoric of the Left’s ‘new civility’ is just build-up for something in the way of a REAL October Surprise. And a rather violent one at that. Just keep looking for the indicators…..”

See, this isn’t the Hope And Change we were looking for.

PROF. JACOBSON: Spike Lee didn’t “Do the right thing.” Nope. He tried to help incite a lynching.

UPDATE: From the comments: “All that ‘anti-bullying’ [email protected] down the proverbial toilet.”

AN “ACADEMIC LYNCHING” AT HAMLINE?

ARAB SPRING NOT LOOKING SO SPRINGY: Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya. “Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country’s new government.”

Related: Cairo in Turmoil: Obama’s Plan B Stumbles, What’s Plan C?

UPDATE: Another female journalist sexually assaulted in Egypt.

IN RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY’S POST ON SOUTHERN MANNERS, reader Jill Wildermuth writes:

As a recent (female) Yankee transplant to the south, I can’t speak of past southern manners, but I can speak of what I’ve seen and experienced since I’ve been here. It’s been nothing short of culture shock, in a wonderful way. I work in a retail store where it’s occasionally required of me to help customers out to their cars with heavy packages. I have no problem with this, but I have yet to seen a man let me take the heavier box, and if I try to, they won’t let me. My male co-workers won’t curse in front of me, or even discuss “inappropriate” subjects without first saying “excuse my language” or “pardon me for this”. I routinely have customers tell me not to worry about helping them with heavy packages, and that I should make the guys carry them. I’m called “ma’am”! (And occasionally, “darlin'”, which is also perfectly acceptable.) I’m treated like a lady wherever I go, not just another random customer. I rarely have to open a door for myself, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been offered assistance to my car when my arms are full after grocery shopping, from both men and women alike.

And the women are no less polite and warm-hearted. They’re happy to have a quick chat or offer an opinion on something if asked by a random stranger. They’ll politely catch your attention if you’re dropped a penny or a piece of paper from your purse to return it. They seem to have a big, wide, authentic smile and a kind word for everyone. They say “Please” and “thank you”, and mean it. And most shockingly, those mothers who bring their young children with them into the stores actually discipline them to make them behave, and will even apologize to the employees if their kids are being unruly.

I’m amazed and grateful for a culture that teaches such manners. If this is a decline in southern manners, then I can only imagine what they were like at their peak.

Shh. Don’t tell anyone. Stories like that one from the NYT are plants, designed to discourage immigration from the North.

UPDATE: Reader Bruce Webster writes: “I’ve lived in Texas twice — two years in Houston (1979-81), and 18 months in Dallas (1998-99). The phenomenon is real. There is a cultural graciousness that permeates all ages. It doesn’t mean there aren’t jerks there (though I suspect a lot of them are transplants), but it does mean that there are genuine good manners everywhere. I think it’s the guns. :-) ..Bruce.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Kevin Menard writes: “As a long term (30+) transplant, will you stop this? We got too many Californians and New Yorkers here already. Austin is damned near unlivable with them. Tell the truth: Lynchings! Religious Fanatics with guns! Mexican gangs! Asian gang wars! Deliverance is real. They shoot your pets, there are no dentists, and no one can read. Yankees are targeted for abuse and mistreatment; their cars get stolen and their children kidnapped. Californians are hunted in a 50 week long season. Fire ants, poisonous snakes, large hairy spiders, coyotes that eat your poodle, wild hogs that eat your cats! Lots of biting bugs…. Stay home where it’s safe!!!”

PROF. JACOBSON: NRA should release everything, or nothing. “As I have said before, all the facts should come out, not just the second- and third- hand characterizations we hear from Politico and others. Identify her; this is not a criminal rape case where there is a rape shield law or where newspapers follow a policy of not identifying the victims of sexual assault. If she wants to go public with her accusations she has no privacy interest behind which to hide. This is particularly so since various news organizations have been touting her professional accomplishments and good standing after leaving the NRA as a way of bolstering her credibility.”

Related: Tom Blumer: The Cain Scrutiny. “Those intent on stopping Cain believe that doing so has become a now-or-never proposition. That’s because in national polling, Cain is showing genuine signs of separating himself from the rest of the GOP field.”

UPDATE: Video: New Cain Ad: High-Tech Lynching. Brilliantly casting the likes of Cornel West and Harry Belafonte in the roles of Uncle-Tom facilitators. Or maybe House Negroes on the Democratic Plantation?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ben Bradlee hypocrisy. Of course, my first thought was, Ben Bradlee’s still alive?

MORE: “Five days and what have we got? Nothing!”

Plus this: ‘Politico, the political daily of liberal pedigree that set the hounds on Mr. Cain, has not said what he is guilty of, or when, or where, or who says so.”

And: What Did Politico Know, And When Did They Know It? “Last evening I sent a series of questions via Twitter to the 4 authors bylined on the Herman Cain “sexual harassment story.” And I did so because it occurred to me that one component of this story that no one seems to be asking about is what, exactly, did the Politico reporters know of any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements by which either/both Herman Cain and the two women cited anonymously in the Politico story were bound. So far, I haven’t received a single response.”

STILL MORE: Bryan Preston on the Cain ad: “I don’t buy the notion that the way Politico handled the story has anything to do with race (politics and party affiliation, obviously yes), but pitting Cain up against Al Sharpton, Cornel West and Harry Belafonte as this ad does can only help Cain. He looks reasonable, they look like racist nuts.”

ROGER SIMON: Politico And Cain: The Return Of The High-Tech Lynching. “It took the mainstream media nearly a year to catch up with the John Edwards Affair, but only weeks into Herman Cain’s narrow frontrunner status for the GOP nomination, the goodfellas at Politico are letting the uppity black conservative have it.” Ouch. But let’s correct the record: They weren’t slow to cover the John Edwards story. They covered up the John Edwards story. Keep rockin’!

UPDATE: Four reporters, zero specifics.

FOR HERMAN CAIN, a high-tech lynching? Well, the press didn’t spend much time looking into the past of the last black guy who looked like he might be President, so they’re putting a lot more effort into it this time. . . .

UPDATE: Byron York: Cain Responds.

METRICS: Turns Out, The South Is A Pretty Nice Place To Live. “The advantages of the South — especially the advantages of the 21st century South — are less well known (and, somehow, Southern coastal cities are frequently overlooked as major cities). Oh, there are books and TV shows, songs and movies about Dixie — but, as Habeeb points out, they’re often misleading caricatures or dwell too heavily on the South’s past. Little has been done to update the popular image of the region, which is now economically inviting and culturally reassuring — perhaps because those who spin popular images, from the president to junior reporters, haven’t taken the time to really understand the South for themselves. That happens to be Habeeb’s thesis.”

To be honest, we’d rather word didn’t get out. Stay away! In fact, I need to point this out: The South is a cultural desert, across which ride Klansmen on horseback and NASCAR fans in F350 Dually pickups. The cultural center is Wal-Mart, and the occasional tailgater before a lynching. Gunshows are disdained as the domain of pointy-headed intellectuals, because they also sell books. No, really, that’s all true — stay away! For the love of God, stay away!

UPDATE: Reader Phil Manhard emails: “I wish to add that we have fire ants, sinkholes, red tide, shark attacks, huge and regular brush fires, sandspurs, sunburn, hurricanes (though, unexpectedly!, none in the last couple of years). Yes, for the love of God, stay far away!”

And the chiggers. Beastly critters you want no part of. Stay in Massachusetts!

ODDLY ASHAMED:

In Paul Krugman’s America, one expects panic and lynchings of Muslims and dissenters. So “we” should be “proud” to have avoided this natural inclination of ours.

To which one might respond: What do you mean “we,” professor?

Indeed.

WISCONSIN UPDATE: They told me if I voted for John McCain, we’d see the reemergence of a culture of lynching. And they were right!

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED REPUBLICAN WE’D SEE LYNCHINGS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: And they were right!

CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF COMMON CAUSE: “Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert wants Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the liberal group Common Cause should lose its nonprofit status, after a conservative website published footage of protesters calling for the lynching of conservative Supreme Court justices. The footage shows enraged protesters making inflammatory and threatening comments about Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas. Gohmert said that the inflammatory remarks are more troubling given the attack on Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords earlier this year.”

THE TWO-MINUTE HATE IS LASTING A LOT MORE THAN TWO MINUTES: Salon.com Commenter Calls for Lynching Of Koch Brothers.

BECAUSE THE NAACP IS OKAY WITH LYNCHING AS LONG AS IT HAPPENS TO THE RIGHT BLACK GUYS, APPARENTLY: NAACP won’t directly address racism leveled against Clarence Thomas at progressive protest.

In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”

A bunch of pathetic house negroes living on the Democratic Party’s plantation. There’s no reason why anyone should take anything they say seriously any more. They’re certainly not a civil rights, or racial equality, group, as their recent behavior illustrates.

COMMON CAUSE’S CONVICTIONS OF CONVENIENCE: Or, given the whole “lynch Clarence Thomas” business, maybe we should call it Kommon Kause’s Konvictions of Konvenience.

Related: Common Cause And The Oldest Profession. “Amusingly, Bob Edgar is a former Congressman himself who supposedly got into things like Common Cause in order to clean up the political system: I’m not sure how this can be reconciled with explicitly calling for the lynching of uppity black men (and their wives) – but then, neither did Common Cause – at least, once they got caught. Although the sheer crawling nature of that apology makes one wonder who from Common Cause’s leadership cadre got caught on camera calling for somebody’s death…”

MORE ON COMMON CAUSE, FROM DON SURBER: What is unforgivable is the outright hypocrisy over the filibuster by this faux-nonpartisan group of lefties.

Plus this: “By the way, hate speech is protected — as is corporate speech, even from those corporations who pay no taxes at all — such as Common Cause.”

UPDATE: Reader Robert Schenck writes: “I think when they start calling for the lynching of Clarence Thomas you’re allowed to spell it ‘Kommon Kause’.” Korrect.

COMMON CAUSE RESPONDS TO CALLS FOR A CLARENCE THOMAS LYNCHING BY ITS SUPPORTERS, and James Taranto observes: “Everybody does it? Think it through and you will see that this is a stunning indictment of the American left. To begin with, it is not true that everybody does it. As we noted yesterday, the formerly mainstream media have spent the past two years trying to depict the Tea Party as precisely the sort of racist, hateful, violent political movement that Common Cause appears in the video to be. That media effort has failed, not for lack of will but for lack of evidence. If everybody did it, the Tea Party would do it, and if the Tea Party did it, you would have read about it in the New York Times.”

Plus this: “So here we have a corporation that advertises itself as a ‘grassroots organization’ while exercising its First Amendment rights to advance the position that corporations do not have First Amendment rights, only individuals do. Some individuals, participating in the corporation’s ‘grassroots’ rally, exercise their First Amendment rights in ways that harm the corporation’s image. The corporation responds by exercising its First Amendment rights to denounce those individuals for having exercised their First Amendment rights. And it does in its capacity as a faceless corporation, by issuing a statement for which no individual–not even CEO Bob Edgar–takes responsibility.”

Conclusion: “For the sake of truth in advertising, Common Cause should change its name to Hypocrisy Hub.”

AT THE CLIMATE-OF-HATE BLOG, Markos Krugman notes lefty protester calls for lynching Clarence Thomas, and spots an(other) irony.

MORE OF THAT “NEW CIVILITY” WE WERE PROMISED? Video: Koch protests include calls to lynch Clarence Thomas. Note that this was at an event organized by the supposedly mainstream Common Cause. “Will the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the ‘Rage on the Left’ and label Common Cause a racist hate group?” I eagerly await the statement from the ABA criticizing attempts to intimidate the judiciary.

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch emails: “Gosh, it’s like this civility stuff is a sham bullies use when their victims hit back.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Speaking of “intimidating the judiciary,” look who else was there. “About 125 federal judges from across the country, including members of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, met at the same time as the Kochs for a separate conference at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort.” All while people were calling for Clarence Thomas to be lynched.

But that’s okay, the call for lynching was at a protest that featured “local elected Democrats and labor leaders.” So no story here.

MORE ON MARTIN LUTHER KING’S GUNS:

There’s nothing unusual about this. Many civil rights activists—including those who publicly engaged in non-violent forms of resistance—kept guns for self-defense. T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and mutual aid leader who founded the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed. During the murder trial that followed the horrific lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, Howard escorted Till’s grieving mother and various others to and from the courthouse in a heavily-armed caravan.

Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.

Around ten years ago, maybe a bit longer, my law school had a program where ex-Black Panther Kathleen Cleaver (with whom I went to law school) came to speak. It was heavily attended by Knoxville civil-rights veterans, and I think some of my colleagues were surprised when an elderly black preacher launched into a defense of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. I wasn’t, though.

WAR AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY UPDATE: Black teen who filmed an LAUSD campus cop hitting a student faces bizarre charges and years in prison.

On Dec. 2, Jeremy Marks, a Verdugo Hills High School special education student, was offered a new plea offer by the L.A. County District Attorney: If he pled guilty to charges of obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and “attempted lynching,” he’d serve only 32 months in prison.

That actually was an improvement from the previous offer made to the young, black high schooler — seven years in prison.

The D.A. then handed Angela Berry-Jacoby, Mark’s lawyer, a stack of 130 documents, and the message within those thick files was clear: She says District Attorney Steve Cooley’s prosecution team plans to try to discredit Marks, and several other Verdugo Hills High School students on the witness stand, by dragging out misbehavior incidents from their school records over the years.

Marks, 18, has been sitting in Peter Pitchess Detention Center, a tough adult jail, since May 10. Bail was set at $155,000, which his working-class parents can’t pay to free their son for Christmas. His mother is a part-time clerk at a city swimming pool, his father is a lab tech.

The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his “attempted lynching” of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles.

The second is that Marks’ weapon was the camera in his cell phone.

There’s an “attempted lynching,” all right, but . . . .

More here: The Curious Case of Jeremy Marks: Student Accused of Trying to Lynch a Campus Cop.

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch emails: “Campus cops, like teachers, only have the nerve to make trouble for the kids they think won’t give them a bad time back.”

REPORTS OF A LYNCHING BY VIOLENT HILLBILLY “TEABAGGERS” MAY HAVE BEEN PREMATURE: AP sources: Suicide eyed in Ky. census worker case.

HMM: Limbaugh Targeted By Obama Official: “The plot thickens on the media’s character-lynching of Rush Limbaugh. Of the four stories run on ESPN.com about Limbaugh’s bid for the Rams (October 6, October 12, October 15, and another October 15) none of them mention that NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith served as counsel to Attorney General Eric Holder and was a member of Barack Obama’s transition team. The October 12 article references Smith’s anti-Limbaugh email meant to garner opposition against the radio host’s bid. The report refers to Smith only as the executive director of the NFLPA. Despite the fact that Smith’s opposition was based on Limbaugh’s political commentary, the report failed to mention that Smith’s political connections (including those to whom he donated thousands of dollars) have a vested interest in Limbaugh’s discrediting.”

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch writes:

BTW this is a big, big deal, and something Nixon ( or maybe Gene Talmadge or George Wallace in his heyday.) would have done. The difference is the press wouldn’t have played along then. Not because it was wrong. The press could care less about that ( Go look up Walter Duranty), but because Nixon wasn’t a Democrat. It’s all about power with the press…their power. You get in between them and it, heaven help you.

Ouch.

MEGAN MCARDLE: “It is perfectly true that if the races had been reversed, Al Sharpton would probably be out there saying this was a symptom of America’s lynching culture, and also perfectly irrelevant. The response to Al Sharpton’s antics is not to emulate them. Race-baiting is not a team sport that anyone should want to join.” Though lately it seems that way. . . .

UPDATE: Meh. Read the transcript. Limbaugh bit is obvious parody, which Dreher didn’t catch, and Megan didn’t notice that he didn’t catch, and I didn’t notice that Megan — oh, never mind. Anyway, much ado about nothing much.