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.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: