U.K. Says Fox News Isn’t Fair and Balanced

While student protesters on college campuses may not think so, the First Amendment is a beautiful, precious, and rare thing.

Look no further than one of our closest allies, the United Kingdom. This week, the U.K broadcasting regulation office, Ofcom, ruled that Fox News broadcasts violated laws regarding impartiality.

The ruling stems from episodes of Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight earlier this year regarding coverage of President Trump’s travel ban in January and the Manchester terrorist bombing in May.

Tucker Carlson’s May 25th episode attacked the U.K. government for engaging in politically correct policy rather than seriously combating the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism, the Guardian reported. The program included criticism of Prime Minister Theresa May, Manchester Mayor Beverly Hughes, as well as other local and law enforcement officials.

Ofcom’s ruling concluded there was “no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised” and the presenter “did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.”

Sean Hannity’s January 31st episode featured clips of public officials reacting negatively to the executive order banning travelers entering the United States from certain predominantly Muslim countries, followed by a rebuttal and dismissal from Hannity. In short, he did his usual opening monologue. Ofcom was not a fan.

Ofcom acknowledged that viewers were likely to expect Hannity to address controversial issues from a perspective that is generally more supportive of the US Republican party. However, the likely audience expectations did not provide sufficient contextual justification to outweigh the numerous highly critical statements made about people who had opposed the order, coupled with the clear support being expressed for the policies of President Trump.”

Consider for a moment that somewhere in London there is a government bureaucrat who goes to work every day with the sole purpose of watching the previous evening’s cable shows to determine whether critical coverage provided “sufficient contextual justification.” After writing up the report on Hannity this same bureaucrat, after a quick trip to the water cooler and looking in a mirror to check his comb-over, determines whether Tucker Carlson accurately reflected the views of the U.K. government.

These subjective determinations do not come with a mere slap on the wrist. Ofcom violations can result in substantial fines paid by media companies. Fortunately for Rupert Murdoch and Fox, they stopped broadcasting Fox News in Britain in August, so they will not be subject to fines for this activity. Sky, the British satellite broadcast company partially owned by Fox, paid an indirect price, with shares dipping 1.72% upon the announcement. Investors are worried that the announcement does not bode well for the government’s review of Fox’s attempt to purchase the remaining portion of Sky that it does not own.

While it is easy to shake our head at our friends across the ocean, it’s worth noting that such nonsense could easily happen here at home. Despite the First Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the so-called “fairness doctrine” in 1969. The policy was created to ensure equal time among the conservatives and liberals on radio and television broadcasts. While the policy was repealed in 1987, liberals long sought to restore it under the guise that the federal government must ensure a fair and balanced media environment. For his part, President Trump has opined on Twitter that he would like to see something like the fairness doctrine reinstituted.

Of course, objective and professional journalism is important. Considering the amount of fake news and Russian propaganda which makes its way into our Facebook and Twitter feeds on a daily basis, everyone must be conscious of where they get their news.

None of this means that we need some centralized agency of imperfect and biased human beings making one big collective decision for all of us. No matter what the Supreme Court says (and the Warren Court was wrong a lot), regimes like Ofcom or the fairness doctrine violate the First Amendment’s right to a free press and free speech.

Anyone watching Hannity or Tucker Carlson Tonight for news are fooling themselves. Tucker and Sean do not hold themselves out to be objective broadcasters. They are not journalists. They provide commentary and analysis regarding the day’s events. In 2017, such shows are not a novel concept. Anyone tuning into Fox News at 8 or 9pm over the last 25 years understand this.

While Hannity and Carlson have their detractors across the political spectrum, all Americans should relish the fact that they are not being overseen by some Washington bureaucrat demanding that they play nice. Any opinion, as long there’s a large enough audience, is welcome on American airwaves.

Long live Sean Hannity. Long live Tucker Carlson. Long live Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow, for that matter.

Be thankful for the robust freedoms we enjoy, and how rare and precious the First Amendment is, even among Western democracies.

And be vigilant at future attempts to infringe upon it.

BAMN and the Violence of the Radical Left

Sole responsibility for the protests in Charlottesville that became violent belonged to an “alt-right” movement comprised of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the lame-stream media would have us believe. But is that true?

Or, what is “the rest of the story”, as Paul Harvey used to say?

The opposition to the “bad” protestors (those against the removal of Civil War statues that memorialized Confederate soldiers) were deemed “good” protestors, which primarily consisted of members of the AntiFa movement. Their counterparts and affiliates in California are known by the acronym BAMN.

By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) are exactly what the name suggests, a bunch of malcontents, liberal radical activists on steroids who are eternally regretful they were born too late to be a part of the violent anti-war, anti-government protests of the 1960s. They are a loosely knit organization of anarchist punks and violent thugs. The name of the organization literally sums up the political philosophy of BAMN. If their leadership don’t like you, or don’t like what you might be wearing, or suspect you might even be thinking something of which they don’t approve, watch out — these people certainly aren’t shy about resorting to cowardly acts of violence to get their way. By Any Means Necessary.

They aren’t afraid to surround a person in broad daylight, knock that person to the ground and quickly pounce like a pack of jackals, punching and kicking their defenseless victim still lying on the ground. But most of them wear masks while committing their crimes, hoping to avoid arrest, and responsibility. See for yourself. They aren’t afraid of physically assaulting a peaceful protestor trying to avoid them even if police happen to be literally standing right there, watching and waiting until a few kicks to the head appear to land before they finally intervened to stop the attack.

BAMN is led by Yvette Felarca, a 47-year-old born in the Philippines but claiming American nationality. She might be a naturalized citizen or a permanent legal resident (green card holder), but that doesn’t give her the right to repeatedly punch native-born American citizens, or try to deprive them of their right to free speech.

Freedom of speech only means that Congress will never pass a law that takes away Ms. Felarca’s right to express her personal opinions. She does not have the right to perpetually filibuster the general public so that only her ideas can ever be heard.

To be brutally honest, I’m not particularly surprised to learn that Ms. Felarca doesn’t understand that, because quite frankly, she doesn’t seem to be very bright. However, I’m more than a little bit surprised that anyone this empty-headed could find mindless sheep, ready to perform another exercise in futility.

What scares me about BAMN? Not so much the violence — sooner or later, these idiots will violently attack an undercover cop or someone with a concealed weapon, and someone will get shot, and next time with real bullets. Even though this AntiFa protestor in the gas mask got lucky (and obviously unlucky at the same time), I’m guessing that he hasn’t tried this stunt since taking a direct hit, for the “movement.”

Ouch! That had to leave a mark…

No, what worries me is that these super-leftist, anti-American radicals have not only infiltrated academia, they have become an infestation.

These people are allegedly among our best and brightest — college professors, teachers, and academic types, but apparently they aren’t even smart enough to understand that it’s generally considered a felony to hit a guy in the head with a bike lock.

Alas, you can’t teach classes from prison.

Naturally, Yvette Felarca sees herself as a victim. That’s also how she wants the public to see her, too. I also know what happens to people like her, who think of themselves as victims, when in reality they are the perpetrators.

The large bandage on her head is an attempt to paint her in a sympathetic light, when in fact, she has a history of unprovoked, violent physical attacks on peaceful counter-protestors.

The problem is that Yvette Felarca has a bizarre, seriously distorted view of reality. For example she characterized conservative writer and public speaker Milo Yiannopoulos as being a racist and a homophobe.

The problem with that is that Milo Yiannopoulos’ sexual orientation is rather well known. In fact, he’s openly homosexual, and Yiannopoulos has even been known to brag about his black boyfriends in interviews.

This is the real reason Ms. Felarca doesn’t like people like Milo — he backs up his claims and opinions with facts and statistics. In fact, he cites the same facts and statistics as Larry Elder, that originated with the FBI. As Milo astutely said,

Black lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.

Let this soak into your brain for a bit — Yvette Felarca is a middle-school social studies teacher.

This means she has a daily opportunity to pollute the minds of impressionable young children with dangerously radical liberal, Socialist ideological beliefs. By the time our children and grandchildren finish college, they won’t know how to think for themselves. They are being brainwashed. The problem isn’t that someone is trying to deprive Ms. Felarca of her freedom of speech, it’s that she is perfectly willing to commit acts of violence to prevent others from enjoying the same freedom.

But patriots may take heart…

We know how and when this will end — with a criminal trial. Ms. Felarca plans to plead self-defense, but the video evidence will speak for itself.

Here’s some irony for you — a meeting organized by Ms. Felarca at UC-Berkeley to conspire and prevent a group of students known as “Patriot’s Prayer” from holding a meeting on campus was infiltrated by students that were Trump supporters. Ms. Felarca called the police and demanded the students be removed, so that she could complete her plans to disrupt their meeting. This would be comedy gold, except for legal expenses and court costs.

Even though Felarca isn’t a student at Berkeley, she believes that she has more rights on campus than the students who have paid to take classes there. This woman is deranged. She can”t get away with punching people she doesn’t like, but that won’t keep her from trying to organize her sheep. Now she implores them to pressure prosecutors into dropping her pending criminal charges.

Fortunately, the judicial system doesn’t allow mob rule. And one thing is certain — this woman should never be allowed into the classroom to teach children again. Normally under these circumstances I would suggest sending this person back to their country of origin. In this instance, that would mean deporting her back to the Philippines, where Duterte doesn’t have a reputation for tolerating his political enemies.

Yvette Felarca might be full of malarkey and a public nuisance, but I don’t want her death on my conscience. If she punched me, I wouldn’t even want to hit her back. I’d settle for having her arrested, because I prefer legal means of recourse.

I will never surrender my freedom of speech. These aren’t the people to tell “over my dead body” though, because they appear willing to make that happen.

Obviously, By Any Means Necessary does not exclude violence.

BREAKING: Sessions Tells Tucker Carlson Trump Criticism ‘Kind of Hurtful’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that Trump’s attacks are “kind of hurtful.”

Well, umm it’s kind of hurtful but the President of the United States is a strong leader. He is determined to move this country in the direction that he believes it to go to make it great again, and he has had a lot of criticism and he’s steadfast determined to get his job done and he wants all of us to do our job and that’s what I intend to do.

I feel his pain. It’s got to be a horror show working for a tyrant like Trump.

“You Were Hoodwinked.” Tucker Carlson Tears Into Congressman Who Supported Iran Deal

It’s nice to see Tucker Carlson playing hardball with Democrats. In light of an investigative report from Politico revealing that the Obama administration lied about the prisoners the United States swapped with Iran over the nuclear deal with that nation. The White House called the prisoners “civilians” and even had some charges dropped against them.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration. Another was serving an eight-year sentence for conspiring to supply Iran with satellite technology and hardware. As part of the deal, U.S. officials even dropped their demand for $10 million that a jury said the aerospace engineer illegally received from Tehran.

And in a series of unpublicized court filings, the Justice Department dropped charges and international arrest warrants against 14 other men, all of them fugitives. The administration didn’t disclose their names or what they were accused of doing, noting only in an unattributed, 152-word statement about the swap that the U.S. “also removed any Interpol red notices and dismissed any charges against 14 Iranians for whom it was assessed that extradition requests were unlikely to be successful.”

Carlson had Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) on his show Tuesday night to discuss the Iran deal in light of Politico’s revelations. Carlson asked Swalwell if he had second thoughts knowing what we know now. The congressman refused to relent, spouting talking points and parroting the line that “we’re all safer now” because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons (yet).

Then Carlson began to ask about specific prisoners, and Swalwell refused to alter his tune one bit.

[Carlson] asked Swalwell about one of the Iranian nationals released by Obama who was charged with fraudulently obtaining Federal Aviation Administration credentials.

“Why would someone like that get FAA credentials illegally? He got more than two years in prison,” Carlson said. “Why would we let a guy like that go?”

“Tucker, you got the wrong guy if you think I’m going to come here and defend Iran,” Swalwell said.

“But you voted for it,” Carlson shot back. “You say it made us safer. Why would letting a guy like that go free make us safer?”

Swalwell, however, continued to say the deal overall made America safer.

“I’m not saying you’re pro-Iran, what I’m saying is: You were hoodwinked,” Carlson said.

Swalwell would not back down from his support of the original deal, even as Carlson repeated the newly revealed truth that Congress was lied to in the course of presenting the deal. The congressman wound up essentially agreeing to disagree with Carlson.

It’s too bad.  Don’t you know how refreshing it would have looked to see him admit that if he had to do it over again, he would have done it differently?

Catch the entire video here: