Someone didn't like what Mike Rowe had to say about Ferguson. This is his EPIC response.

Right before the holidays, we posted Mike Rowe's thoughts on the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, as well as the protests that followed. In the post, Mike presented some common sense steps to prevent such tragedies in the future, including identifying and expelling bias in the police and advising people of all colors to not resist arrest. Instead, challenge unjust arrests in the court of law. Well, The Inquisitr didn't appreciate Mike's response, and their article on how he was wrong prompted another epic dose of Mike Rowe wisdom.

"I’m not a lawyer or a linguist, but doesn’t it go without saying that anything 'unlawful' is something we automatically have the right to resist? For instance, it’s a crime to ignore your tax bill, but not if your tax bill is “unlawful.” It’s a crime to resist the Draft, but not if the Draft is 'unlawful.' And of course, it’s a crime to resist an arrest, but not if the arrest is 'unlawful,'" Mike wrote. "I didn’t make this distinction in my original post because, as a rule, I hate to point out the screamingly obvious."

Mike continued by calling The Inquisitr's argument an annoying logical fallacy before reiterating, "No one has the right to resist a lawful arrest, ever. Doing so is always a crime. Period."

"Michael Brown and Eric Garner died because they got into a confrontation that could have been easily avoided. That’s what made their deaths so tragic," Mike continued before adding, "...let’s assume both men had the law, and The Inqiuisitr, firmly on their side. They’d still be dead."

Read his post in full below:

10922785_930956070247870_818495784100519566_n

Arguing On The Head of a Pin

Just before Christmas, I answered a question about Ferguson. In my response, I suggested the fastest way to avoid similar tragedies was to a) root out and condemn bias in law enforcement, and b) discourage people of all races from resisting arrest. I concluded by saying that “resisting arrest was not a right, but a crime.” Shortly thereafter, this headline appeared in The Inquisitr: “FERGUSON - Mike Rowe Gets it Wrong - Resisting Arrest IS your Right - Courts Have Ruled.”

Naturally, I was flattered to have my Facebook post analyzed by The Inquisitr’s legal scholars, so I scrolled down, eager to see the proof of how I screwed up. What I found was a link to a court case from 1889 called John Bad Elk v. US, with the following summation. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that resisting unlawful arrest is not only a citizen’s right — but that citizens have the right to kill a police officer who is forcefully attempting an unlawful arrest under the same principles of self-defense that govern any assault case.”

I’m not a lawyer or a linguist, but doesn’t it go without saying that anything “unlawful” is something we automatically have the right to resist? For instance, it’s a crime to ignore your tax bill, but not if your tax bill is “unlawful.” It’s a crime to resist the Draft, but not if the Draft is “unlawful.” And of course, it’s a crime to resist an arrest, but not if the arrest is “unlawful.”

I didn’t make this distinction in my original post because, as a rule, I hate to point out the screamingly obvious. But The Inquisitr has proceeded as though I’ve said that very thing. In fact, they’ve dedicated a whole article to disproving something I never said in the first place.

This is called a “straw-man argument,” or a “logical fallacy,” and it’s typical of the demagoguery that surrounds this topic on both sides. Mostly it’s just annoying, but here, it’s actually dangerous, because an “unlawful” arrest could also result from a bad search warrant, the failure to Mirandize, a lack of probable cause, or any number of other procedural mistakes. Which begs an obvious question: Does The Inquisitr really mean to suggest that a suspect has the right to kill a cop, if they believe they’re being arrested “unlawfully?” It’s hard to tell. But if you compare their headline to their final paragraph, you might detect a whiff of ambiguity.

“[In Florida]...even though a citizen may resist an unlawful arrest, it is NOT legal to resist with violence. Many states have laws that expressly permit citizens to resist unlawful arrests, but many also explicitly prohibit resistance of arrest under circumstances. While Mike Rowe may be right to say that resisting arrest is not good for one’s health, he gets it wrong when he flatly declares resisting arrest “a crime.” The actual answer is, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t.”

I have no idea what the goal of an article like this really is, but it sure as hell can’t be the pursuit of clarity. Seriously? “Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t?” Tensions are high, New York is a powder keg, and The Inquisitr is arguing on the head of a pin. So I’m gonna double down on my previous claim, and be as clear as the language allows.

No one has the right to resist a lawful arrest, ever.

Doing so is always a crime. Period.

The Inquisitr (can we buy them a vowel?) has done nothing to contradict what I wrote. All they’ve done is claim in their headline that I’m “wrong,” and then reminded their readers that "sometimes" it might be OK to kill a cop if the arrest is later determined to be “unlawful.” However, they fail to point out that no one but a judge has the power to make that determination after the fact. They might as well grant us the right to fly, but leave out the part about needing wings.

Michael Brown and Eric Garner died because they got into a confrontation that could have been easily avoided. That’s what made their deaths so tragic. But let’s assume they had the good fortune of being counseled by The Inquisitr a day before their fateful encounters. Let’s assume they were duly informed that “sometimes, resisting arrest is not a crime.” Let’s assume that both men took this advice to heart, and decided to resist precisely as they did in Ferguson and Staten Island. Finally, let’s assume that a court would later evaluate the circumstances, and rule that the cops had been attempting to arrest both men unlawfully. In other words, let’s assume both men had the law, and The Inqiuisitr, firmly on their side.

They’d still be dead.

That was the point of what I first posted. I wasn’t discouraging anyone from waiving their right to self-defense. Nor was I in any way condoning the bias that exists in law enforcement. I was only suggesting that if you have the option - as Brown and Garner clearly did - you should never fight the police in the street. Fight them in a court of law. Your odds are better there, no matter what color you are.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.