I Stopped Listening to NPR

It was a long time coming, but I stopped listening to NPR radio on my local affiliate here in Austin, KUT-FM. Two stories hallmarked my decision: a denial of left wing violence and a hatchet job on Falun Gong. 

Words come with responsibilities for the creator and receiver. Understanding the hidden messages in news reporting is a necessary skill for any serious democrat (or republican). Reading and listening require translating, filtering, and interpreting. I learned to do it by the time I first took a journalism class in the 8th grade. When I entered high school, I also began writing news. For a couple of years lately, I would flip between Fox radio (KLBJ-AM/FM) and NPR. The headlines were often the same though the nuances were different. The truth was mixed in there somewhere for me to extract and evaluate. 

Now, I get my news by reading the Associated Press on my computer and phone. It is opinionated reporting, of course, beginning with the choice of stories. What is important? Why? Make of it what you will, they decide what to tell you about. So far, I have had less cause for groaning and muttering. 

LEFT WING VIOLENCE AND THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

Reporting on the murders of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky by Elias Rodriguez on May 22, 2025, National Public Radio denied the reality of violence committed in the name of progressive social causes. 

A. MARTÍNEZ: Now, we know that political violence has been on the rise in the United States, but how much of that are we seeing from the far left?

ODETTE YOUSEF: Look, the data show that the far right has been responsible for most of the lethal political violence we've seen in the last four decades. But I spoke with Colin Clarke about this. He says he's been warning about a rise in far-left militancy for years and says it's a reaction to the rise in far-right extremist activity. He's with The Soufan Group.

Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky

YOUSEF: … Historically, far-left violence has mostly been property damage, A. You know, we've seen this with the vandalism of Tesla vehicles and some of the riots during the summer of the racial justice protests in 2020. Lately, though, there have also been high-profile events like attempted assassinations of Trump, the killing of a health care CEO, where the facts are muddy but nonetheless there is a perception that these were leftist actors. This attack, though, may be a clear case of lethality from the left.

MARTÍNEZ: Oh, OK. That's terrible to hear. What happens now? Where did things go from here?

YOUSEF: You know, Clarke says this should prompt some soul-searching on the left. It's tough to claim a moral high ground when someone commits an act like this.

(Read the full transcript below. Also, although he said, "That's terrible to hear" his delivery carried absolutely no hint of terror. He dismissed it.)

In 1957, Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza catalogued five common excuses offered by criminals :

• Denial of Responsibility
• Denial of Injury
• Denial of the Victim
• Condemning the Condemners
• Appeal to Higher Authority

“Techniques of Neutralization” in American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 6. (Dec., 1957), pp. 664-670.

Anti World Trade Riot in Seattle

NPR and the progressives whom it excuses betray a primitive epistemology which accepts physical objects as metaphysical constants: steel, lumber, hydro-electric dams, and skyscrapers are no different than rocks, trees, rivers, and mountains. So, if you destroy property, you are not really hurting anyone.

In fact, criminal acts are not the special province of any political group. Perpetrators justify their acts with words that are consonant with their own beliefs. It begins and ends there. Claiming the moral high ground is exactly what empowers violence. We couldn’t help it. We had to do it. They deserved it. Who cares about them anyway? They are just as bad as we are and even worse. So why pick on us?

NPR never condemned Occupy protests or Black Lives Matter riots. Finally, this instance of denial was too disingenuous and hypocritical to ignore. So, I stopped listening.

NOT OUR RELIGION

The expose´ that I heard was not their May 13 broadcast on All Things Considered. I heard a replay of a New York Times podcast from 2024.  

"... operation built on exploitation [and] coercion all in service to
[Falun] Gong's religious leader who has turned
Shen Yun into a major source of wealth..." 

The Shun Yen productions are the work of Falun Gong. NPR and The New York Times are opposed to its success and wealth. The Shen Yun productions are a cooperative effort financed by local members of Falun Gong who forward all profits to the organization while also agreeing to absorb any losses. 

It also remains that some of the Shen Yun performers allege that their training is harsh, even brutal. I can accept their claims because professional athletics is known to be like that. The coaches always insist that championship comes at a price. So, work through the pain and get back in the game. But it is their choice. And these exposés exist now because some have quit and told their stories, which was also their choice. 

Falun Gong teaches meditation and movement.

It promises a lot.

Like any church lacking a government, Falun Gong exerts only a moral force. Its members choose to follow its mandates. 

Previously on Necessary Facts

Peace is More Powerful 

Soldiers of Peace 

Armies Without Weapons 

Created Works and the Public Domain 

NPR TRANSCRIPTS 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5407925

NATIONAL

< Jewish Museum fatal shooting raises concerns about domestic extremism

MAY 23, 20254:18 AM ET

3-Minute Listen

TRANSCRIPT

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5407925

A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:

We're now going to hear about more possible motives for the man suspected of killing Israeli Embassy aides in Washington. Now, among the details still emerging about the suspect is that he once belonged to a far-left political group. Let's bring in NPR's domestic extremism correspondent Odette Yousef. So what's known so far about the suspect's political beliefs?

ODETTE YOUSEF, BYLINE: Well, A, someone with the same name as the suspect was quoted back in October of 2017 in a publication put out by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and it quoted this person as being from that group. Since the killings, the PSL issued a statement disavowing the attack and saying that Elias Rodriguez's association with the group ended in 2017. I think, you know, we may learn more about this as the case develops. But also, yesterday morning, I went to the building where the suspect is believed to live. It's a brick multiunit on a leafy residential side street in northwest Chicago. The windows of the unit believed to be his had a lot of signs up, three of them relating to the conflict in Gaza, one that said ceasefire now, another that included the message free Palestine. There were also signs for local politicians on the left, including a Democratic socialist.

MARTÍNEZ: Now, we know that political violence has been on the rise in the United States, but how much of that are we seeing from the far left?

YOUSEF: Look, the data show that the far right has been responsible for most of the lethal political violence we've seen in the last four decades. But I spoke with Colin Clarke about this. He says he's been warning about a rise in far-left militancy for years and says it's a reaction to the rise in far-right extremist activity. He's with The Soufan Group.

COLIN CLARKE: Only really since October 7, the war in Gaza and the Israeli military campaign in the Middle East, have we seen this kind of uptick in what I would call far-left militancy, far-left extremism surrounding the issue of Gaza - and not just, you know, pro-Palestinian but actually pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, pro actual terrorist organizations.

YOUSEF: And Clarke, you know, says he's talking about a very small number of people doing that. But still, you know, he points to college campuses where there were some people waving flags of those organizations or voicing solidarity explicitly with them. Historically, far-left violence has mostly been property damage, A. You know, we've seen this with the vandalism of Tesla vehicles and some of the riots during the summer of the racial justice protests in 2020. Lately, though, there have also been high-profile events like attempted assassinations of Trump, the killing of a health care CEO, where the facts are muddy but nonetheless there is a perception that these were leftist actors. This attack, though, may be a clear case of lethality from the left.

MARTÍNEZ: Oh, OK. That's terrible to hear. What happens now? Where did things go from here?

YOUSEF: You know, Clarke says this should prompt some soul-searching on the left. It's tough to claim a moral high ground when someone commits an act like this. And, you know, you heard from Jennifer just now that some of the details in court documents paint a really chilling picture of these particular killings. I think it'll be important to watch also how this develops both in the political arena and in public discourse. Will this suspect be lionized by parts of the public? And politically, there are concerns that the government may use this as a reason for significant countermeasures aimed at suppressing free speech and even pushing the boundaries of labeling certain groups domestic terrorists.

MARTÍNEZ: All right, that's NPR's Odette Yousef. Odette, thanks a lot.

YOUSEF: Thank you.

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5407925

NATIONAL

Suspect charged with murder in killing of 2 Israeli Embassy employees

MAY 23, 20254:16 AM ET

HEARD ON MORNING EDITION

By  Jennifer Ludden, Michel Martin

3-Minute Listen

TRANSCRIPT

The man suspected of killing two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C. has been charged with murder. Officials say they're continuing to investigate the attack as a possible hate crime.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

The man suspected of killing two Israeli Embassy employees outside a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., has been charged with two counts of murder, among other crimes.

A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:

Law enforcement officials say they're continuing to investigate the attack as a possible hate crime.

MARTIN: NPR's Jennifer Ludden is with us now with the latest. Jennifer, good morning.

JENNIFER LUDDEN, BYLINE: Good morning.

MARTIN: I understand that we now have a lot more information on what exactly happened. So what can you tell us?

LUDDEN: Yes. We know now from the affidavit that the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, flew from his home in Chicago to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. That's the day before the attack. He declared a firearm in his checked luggage, and he bought a ticket to the event that was taking place at this Jewish museum three hours before it started. It was a mixer for young diplomats. From witness interviews and surveillance video, we also have some pretty gruesome details of the shooting. Law enforcement officials say Rodriguez shot at the two victims from the back and kept firing repeatedly, even as one of them tried to crawl away. He then discarded his 9-millimeter handgun, and eventually, he went inside the museum and told a police officer that he had done this, saying, quote, "I did it for Palestine. I did it for Gaza."

MARTIN: And The Washington Post is also reporting that the gunman sat down indoors after the shooting as though he was fleeing the danger. A witness told the Post that somebody even got him a glass of water. So President Trump and others have called this an act of antisemitism. But is it correct that so far, he has not been charged with a hate crime?

LUDDEN: That's right, not at this point. But Jeanine Pirro, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told reporters that the murder charges and others are only the beginning. Federal agents raided Rodriguez's home in Chicago yesterday. They learned that he expressed admiration for a person who self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy here in D.C. last year. He described them as a martyr. And Pirro says investigators are going through massive amounts of evidence to learn what motivated him.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JEANINE PIRRO: Violence against anyone based on their religion is an act of cowardice. It is not an act of a hero. It is the kind of case that we will vigorously pursue.

LUDDEN: And she says, look, there's going to be additional charges as the evidence warrants.

MARTIN: Tell us more about the two people who were killed. They were a young couple. They both worked at the Israeli Embassy. What else can you tell us about them?

LUDDEN: Yeah, it's really quite sad, Michel. Israel's ambassador to the U.S. said Yaron Lischinsky had bought an engagement ring. He was planning to propose to Sarah Milgrim next week. They were going to be on a trip to Jerusalem. Lischinsky was a German and Israeli citizen. Milgrim was American. She grew up in a Kansas City suburb. A friend of Milgrim's, Israeli attorney Ayelet Razin Bet Or, told me she took the embassy job after Hamas attacked Israel a year and a half ago. She was already sensing a rise in antisemitism, and she wanted to combat that.

AYELET RAZIN BET OR: Not with violence or shoutings or verbal abuse, but in diplomacy, with love, with intelligence.

LUDDEN: Razin Bet Or says it is a painful irony that Milgrim lost her life in this way.

MARTIN: Finally, Jennifer, very briefly, obviously, something like this heightens people's fears - obviously, for many Jewish people, but others as well. Are officials saying something about that?

LUDDEN: Absolutely. D.C.'s police chief says there's going to be more law enforcement officers around faith-based groups, schools and places like the Jewish Community Center here.

MARTIN: That is NPR's Jennifer Ludden. Jennifer, thank you.

LUDDEN: Thank you.

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record. 

You Have No Right ...

Following the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent “abortion” decision (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), although you do have an explicit right to bear and keep arms, you have no implied right to a bulletproof vest. You have a First Amendment guarantee to publish whatever you want, but no implied right to read whatever you want. Because nothing in the Sixth or Seventh Amendments defines how many people are empaneled on a jury one person can be a jury. The list goes on.

 

These are among the many specious arguments put forward by the Court: 

The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, but several constitutional provisions have been offered as potential homes for an implicit constitutional right. Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See 410 U. S., at 152–153. The Casey Court grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Others have suggested that support can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but that theory is squarely foreclosed by the Court’s precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications.

[...]

The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.

The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

[...]

Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

Syllabus, DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022.

In the logic of the court, because extra-marital and non-marital relationships have no historic support in US law, they can be outlawed today (or tomorrow). By the last sentence above, the fact that a substance is ruled "illegal" by legislation closes your right to challenge that law. The justices of the Supreme Court may know prostitution when they see it. I am not sure how it is different from "dinner and a movie" -- or marriage. 

 

You have no right to leave the United States or to travel within them. 

 

Just as medical devices are regulated and their ownership, possession, and use are controlled by law, so, too can any instrument or tool be circumscribed: electrophoresis, polymerase chain reactions, spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes, radios, televisions, … In fact, radios have almost 100 years of regulation around them and nothing in the Constitution or US history establishes your right to a radio (television, computer). 

Whether a computer is a “press” would be an argument before a Court that seems well disposed to limiting any claims not supported by explicit text in the original documents of 1789 or 1868. 

Can a state require the licensing of a musical instrument?  

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment notwithstanding, states had laws against marriages across racial lines.  (Personally, I find no scientific evidence for the existence of "race" as a characteristic of human beings. Most of the rest of the world seems to disagree with me.)

“The first ever anti-miscegenation law was passed by the Maryland General Assembly in 1691, criminalizing interracial marriage. In a speech in Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated, "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people". By the late 1800s, 38 US states had anti-miscegenation statutes. By 1924, the ban on interracial marriage was still in force in 29 states. While interracial marriage had been legal in California since 1948, in 1957 actor Sammy Davis Jr. faced a backlash for his relationship with a white woman, actress Kim Novak. In 1958, Davis briefly married a black woman, actress and dancer Loray White, to protect himself from mob violence. 

“In 1958, officers in Virginia entered the home of Richard and Mildred Loving and dragged them out of bed for living together as an interracial couple, on the basis that "any white person intermarry with a colored person"— or vice versa—each party "shall be guilty of a felony" and face prison terms of five years. In 1967 the law was ruled unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

In a statement of sheer ignorance, Vice President Kamala Harris told NPR: “This [Dobbs v. Jackson] is the first time in the history of our country that the United States Supreme Court has taken a constitutional right that was recognized …” (Interview with Asma Khalid 28 June 2022 here.) It absolutely was not. To be generous, let us allow that Vice President Harris misspoke.

 

It was the law of the land that no Asian could become a US citizen. That fact was cited by “the great dissenter” Justice John Marshall Harlan in his reply to the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling affirming racial segregation. Harlan noted that by law, an Asian, who could not become a citizen would be allowed to ride in a railway carriage with White people, though a Colored person, born here, an Army veteran, perhaps, could not. 

World War I US Army veteran Bhagat Thind Singh was denied his citizenship. The Court affirmed that racially, as an Aryan, Singh was “White” but that to the common man of America, he was an Asian and therefore ineligible for citizenship. 

 

In 1935, Jehovah’s Witness Christians in Minersville, Pennsylvania, refused to salute the flag in a pledge of allegiance ceremony. They were expelled from school. In 1940, the Supreme Court upheld the decision: Minersville School District v. Gobitis. Freedom of religion is not absolute, the Court said, but is subsidiary to the need for national unity and therefore national defense. That decision was overturned in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). 

The fact remains - contrary to the opinion of the Vice President - that SCOTUS has taken away rights from people.

While the First Amendment promises freedom of religion, there is no explicit right to freedom from religion. While the Federal government is barred from establishing a national religion, states can and have (Massachusetts and Virginia) had their own government-supported churches. 

 

About 30 years ago, it occurred to me that if abortion takes a human life and is therefore murder, then a miscarriage must be manslaughter. I am pretty sure that I offered it as an argument to libertarians and progressives at social gatherings and was met with blank stares. It seems to have sunk in. (NPR here: Losing a pregnancy could land you in jail in post-Roe America.) You would have to prove that you were not negligent, that you obtained pre-natal care and followed the regimen prescribed for you. Absent that, you are negligent. 

I do not understand why "a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification" except, perhaps, because men are also prohibited from terminating their pregnancies, just as the rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges. 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

 

The GOP as Pushy Beggars 

Tycoon Dough is Democratic 

Ayn Rand versus Conservatives 

The Science of Liberty

Crimes Against Logic: Exposing Bogus Arguments