Sunday, November 28, 2021

The Salvation Army Has Gone Woke Too Now, and They're Losing Support

How is the anti-white racism of CRT or any form of racism consistent with the repeated Biblical assertion that we are all one in Christ -- e.g. Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Salvos are now clearly post-Christian. They ignore Bible teachings on homosexuality too. If you want a guide to the Christian afterlife, you will not find it from them. They now teach conventional "worldly" ideas only

The Salvation Army is losing some long-time support this holiday season in light of the organization picking up on anti-racism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaching. Reporting from Carly Mayberry with Newsweek highlights the problematic teaching document in question, "Let's Talk About Racism," which aims to address "racism and the Church."

As Mayberry reports:

Definitions of institutional and systemic racism are included while real or perceived differences in life outcomes ("inequities") are attributable not to individual effort and other circumstances, but to discrimination. Sections address topics including police brutality, health care and Black unemployment linking such topics to "racial inequity."

That's troublesome for those who note The Salvation Army has been a leader in confronting racism long before the rest of the country and over five decades before the civil rights movement. And they're asking why then should members of an organization built by the Christian faith to actually assist people of all races in need, be repentant of behavior they never perpetuated?

One can find the document through a simple Google search. The question asked above is a worthwhile one, since one of the things the document hopes to achieve is to "Lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed." There's an entire section on "Lamenting and Repenting," which is a theme throughout the teaching document.

Of particular concern, and what is a theme of CRT programs, is the idea of rejecting colorblindness. The document makes several suggestions for white Americans for "challenges... to overcome and address," so as to "begin the process of creating lasting racial reconciliation and healing."

They include:

"Denial of racism."
"Education about racism and inequality"
"Defensiveness about race."
"Little or no exposure to People Of Color."
"Become aware of your bias."
"Stop denying that White privilege exists and learn how it supports racial inequity."
"Racism is not an individual act, it is systemic and institutional."
"Stop trying to be ‘colorblind’"

One long-time donor who has called it quits is Greg Koukl, who issued an open letter to the Salvation Army on November 1 shared over Facebook, as highlighted by Mayberry.

"I am not going to fall for the CRT “Kafka trap” that my protestations are actually evidence of my racism, and neither should you. There is a massive number of academics—black and white, Christian and non-Christian, atheist and theist—who have raised the alarm against the aggressive indoctrination and, frankly, bullying of CRT—not to mention the racial essentialism inherent in the view, the false witness it bears against virtuous people, and the general destruction it continues to wreak on race relations in this country. CRT has set us back 50 years," his letter writes in part.

Koukl makes other points clear, such as how he does acknowledge there is racism, but that CRT is not the way to go about it. "To be clear, I am not claiming there is no racism to be dealt with or are no racist Christians who need to repent. What I am saying is that critical race theory is not an accurate characterization of contemporary racial dynamics in America (as many have argued). Therefore, since its analysis is faulty, it offers a faulty solution, one that creates a whole set of new racial tensions and provides no productive resolution to them," he writes later in the letter.

The letter also closes by inviting people to come to their own decision on whether or not to donate. "I spoke at length about this turn on my radio show this week, inviting my audience to read your material for themselves and make their own judgments. I told them, though, that as for me, I was redirecting my giving elsewhere. I am not “cancelling” you, as many in the CRT movement would gladly do to me. Rather, I am carefully investing my resources in organizations that I fully trust will serve Christ in truth and only in truth, and I no longer trust The Salvation Army to do that," Koukl also writes.

While the preamble to the teaching document claims that it "is a voluntary discussion guide," Mayberry also wrote that training took place "in matters of racial equity in a compulsory manner in January" and that the "agenda for the Territorial Virtual Officers' Councils on Racial Equity workshop mirrored the "Let's Talk About Racism" resource put out by the Commission and was required of current officers."


Stephen Colbert Wants Self-Defense Laws to Change Since Rittenhouse Was Found Not Guilty

image from

Note those fists. A clenched fist is the traditional emblem of the Left. It is a boiling over of the anger and hatred within them

Late-night host Stephen Colbert said that since Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder charges because he was defending himself from aggressors during the Kenosha riots, self-defense laws must change.

"Of course, the big news on Friday was that, after being accused of crossing state lines, killing two people, and wounding another, last year, during a Black Lives Matter protest, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Okay, cards on the table, I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law, but I can tell you this: if he didn’t break the law, we should change the law. That seems simple. That seems simple," Colbert said on Monday to cheering applause from the audience.

"If Emily...said it was perfectly proper to go to Thanksgiving, drop trou and leave your a** print in the pumpkin pie, I’d be like, okay, not illegal, but the system is broken. So, Rittenhouse was found not guilty, but only a complete moron would celebrate this tragedy by making this guy a hero," he added.

As the trial, eyewitnesses, and video evidence proved, Rittenhouse only shot people who were actively attacking him during the August 25 riot. He was not in violation of carrying the AR-15 while being 17-years-old at the time and despite what Colbert said, he did not cross state lines on August 25 until after the shooting as he was already in the Kenosha area when the riots started.


Leftmedia Bemoans Boston’s Election of Asian Mayor

Long have we noted that, despite all their rhetoric, those most guilty of promoting genuine racism are those who claim to be fighting for “social justice.” The city of Boston’s recent election of a new mayor provided yet another example to add to the pile of the Leftmedia’s racial hypocrisy.

Earlier this month, voters in Boston went to the polls and elected the city’s first-ever woman and Asian, Michelle Wu, as mayor. Wu, a Democrat, defeated fellow Democrat Anissa Essaibi George, a black woman. That the mayoral race ended up being a contest between two Democrats testifies to just how far left the city’s politics are.

However, with the Left’s growing embrace of identitarian victimology hierarchy (a.k.a. intersectionality), skin color clearly matters more than policy positions. And leave it to taxpayer-funded NPR to make this point loud and clear. The Leftmedia outlet reported on the historic election outcome this way: “Michelle Wu, an Asian American, is the first woman and first person of color elected to lead the city. While many are hailing it as a turning point, others see it as more of a disappointment that the three black candidates couldn’t even come close.” Talk about a backhanded compliment.

The report continued not by celebrating Wu’s historic accomplishment but by further lamenting the fact that a black person did not win. NPR focused its reporting around comments from black civil rights activist Danny Rivera. “I got home, and I cried,” Rivera said. “I cried my eyes out because I don’t know the next time we’ll see a black mayor in our city. … I believe that it is lived experience that matters most and what separated [former acting Mayor Kim Janey, who is black] from every other candidate. That’s all super powerful, and I thought we missed the moment.”

NPR also interviewed another individual who blasted Bostonians for choosing an Asian candidate over a black one: “It’s just one of those things where it feels like, ‘What else is new?’” But NPR wasn’t done. It also found former Democrat State Representative Marie St. Fleur, who opined: “I mean the data speaks for itself, and it’s troubling. For those of us born or raised in Boston and who lived through some of the darker days, the fact that we blinked at this moment is sadness. At what point in the city of Boston will we be able to vote, and I’m going to be very clear here, for a black person in the corner office?”

Well, Mayor-elect Wu is likely no stranger to this kind of genuine racism. She is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, after all. The Ivy League school has an ugly history of discriminating against Asians in favor of blacks.


If You Like Stagflation, You Will Love Build Back Better

Stagflation is a combination of steep price rises and high unemployment

On November 18, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the single-largest spending bill in American history: President Biden’s Build Back Better Act.

Now, the only thing standing between Build Back Better becoming the law of the land is the U.S. Senate, but more specifically, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

As of now, both Manchin and Sinema have expressed their misgivings about voting in favor of Build Back Better.

“By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation to the American people is not 'transitory' and is instead getting worse," Manchin recently stated. "From the grocery store to the gas pump, Americans know the inflation tax is real and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day.”

Manchin, unlike those in the Biden administration bubble, has his finger on the pulse of the American people.

Moreover, Manchin understands that Biden’s Build Back Better boondoggle would increase inflation while simultaneously reducing employment.

Hence, Manchin is well aware that if the Build Back Better bill is signed into law by Biden, Americans should prepare for a second stretch of Jimmy Carteresque stagflation.

The likelihood that Build Back Better would usher in an unwelcome bout of stagflation is rather simple.

First, Build Back Better is projected to cost somewhere from $1.75 trillion to $5 trillion, based on the budget model used to estimate the bill’s cost.

In October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation rose at a 30-year high of 6.2 percent, as measured by the consumer price index.

If Build Back Better becomes law, the U.S. economy would be overwhelmed with a toxic infusion of trillions of more dollars.

This would further spike inflation by diminishing the value of existing dollars.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit U.S. shores in the spring of 2020, the federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree. To date, the U.S. government has allocated nearly $5 trillion in so-called COVID-19 relief funds. And this comes on top of the federal government’s annual budget, which now stands at more than $6 trillion.

Making matters even worse, President Biden just signed a $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill.

At what point will the federal government’s pandemic-induced spending spree end?

Build Back Better, if passed, would also reduce employment because it includes a plethora of new cash giveaway programs that will almost assuredly not incentivize Americans to return to the workforce. Even worse, if Build Back Better becomes law, it would likely drive more Americans out of the workforce because they would become eligible to receive all sorts of goodies courtesy of Uncle Sam.

For instance, Build Back Better includes $400 billion for universal pre-K, $200 billion for child tax credits, $200 billion for paid leave, $165 billion in health care subsidies, and $150 billion in housing subsidies.

At a time when the U.S. economy has nearly 11 million vacant jobs, paying people not to work is literally the last thing we should be doing. After all, the U.S. labor participation rate remains far lower than in recent history.

However, this is all lost on Democrats.

Before the House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared, “We have a Build Back Better bill that is historic, transformative and larger than anything we have ever done before. We are building back better. If you are a parent, senior, child, worker, American — this bill is for you.”

House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), on the other hand, described the bill as “the single most reckless and irresponsible spending bill in our nation’s history.”

McCarthy’s dire description of Build Back Better is much more accurate than Pelosi’s pie in the sky assessment of the bill.

Unfortunately, at this point, Pelosi and the progressives have steamrolled the bill through the House.

Fortunately, Build Back Better faces a steep uphill climb in the U.S. Senate. Like many Americans, I hope that Manchin and Sinema continue to courageously oppose Build Back Better.




Friday, November 26, 2021

The Democrats are the party of snobs

That's it. It's over. Bill Maher is going to be tossed into the white nationalist camp, though I'm sure some "woke" morons have already done so. This streak is bound to end soon. I'm sure he'll have a closing segment that sparks the ire of conservative America as he has done so many times before. Until then, let's just enjoy him taking a katana to the "woke" left and how if Democrats don't change course soon—yes, they're in for a brutal 2022 election cycle.

Why are people fleeing from the Democrats? It can be summed up in four words: no one likes a snob. For the better part of this decade, the Democratic Party has been the party of the elites, the rich (yes, they have more money), and the educated. The urban-based professional elites that consider places like South Carolina and even Morris County, New Jersey, as Jupiter and Mars have done a bang-up job telling the rest of us that a) they hate us, b) they hate we're not educated like them, and c) they care about everyone else but us.

If you're not wealthy, white, and progressive—you can't be part of this club. If you're pinched by inflation or the grocery store, it's your fault. Maher may speak of the average white voters with some of the talking points used by the "woke" left to make his point, but his commentary was clear: you cannot win if you denigrate most voters in this country who are white and don't hold a college degree. He rehashed how Hillary Clinton didn't have a rural voter outreach or data person until it was too late, and that person's office was based…in Brooklyn. You can't trust the young Democratic operatives to run elections because they don't know how to win. You can't with a generation that's been smothered by participation trophies.

James Carville, a hardcore liberal and the architect of Bill Clinton's 1992 win, said that wokeness cost Democrats in 2021. It's not the first time he's said this, aptly noting that normal people don't talk like the college faculty in the break room. Carville also said that Democrats focus on dumb issues that only speak to the elite, like college debt forgiveness. No one wants to hear it. No one, except rich white liberals who want the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've spent to earn their "whine like a little b****" degrees taken off their books. Yes, let's ask the tens of millions of Americans who don't have college degrees, along with those who have just paid off their loans, to finance a massive bailout for the most privileged in this country in higher education. It's a recipe for a generation of Trump-like candidates.

As Maher put it, "White people suck 2024" isn't a winning message. Also, when did "woke" become a pejorative? That's a key question since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to think that only old people use that term when she was asked about its impact on the Democratic Party. She was slapping down those on her side of the aisle that know her brand of politics doesn't resonate outside of the cities. You can't win that way. It went from rallying cry to pejorative and shows yet another way the "woke" treat people who they find deplorable. If you're not with us, then you might be a neo-Nazi. Offending three-fourths of the electorate is not smart.

Maher said they should do the math, but that would be entertaining white supremacy.

The Democrats are the party of snobs. They're proud to be, which is fine. But the snobs never last. Just ask the ruling French class c. 1789. The French people sure found a way to excise this snobby element from their societal ranks. Now, I'm not saying we should wheel out the guillotines…yet. I want to see the endless stream of liberal tears after the GOP picks up 80-125 seats after Democrats ignored advice from Maher and others who saw the writing on the wall.


Will the Mob Veto the Bill of Rights?

Leftists routinely threaten conservatives with censorship and violence in order to intimidate and silence.

Rittenhouse were understandably worried whether the jury would be intimidated by the mob. After all, someone working for NBC tried to follow the van carrying the jury. There had been attempts to film the jury. Rittenhouse’s lawyer has revealed he received death threats.

In just about any other case, this would be recognized for what it was: the deprivation of a fair trial by trying to intimidate the jury and defense lawyers. That campaign failed in this case — Rittenhouse was acquitted by the jury, and his lawyers stayed on. But grassroots Patriots cannot rest easy.

This isn’t the only time these threats have turned up. There is an open question whether these tactics succeeded in the trial of Derek Chauvin or during the legal battles after the 2020 election.

Put it this way: Can anyone be sure of a fair trial when Maxine Waters can threaten riots over the “wrong” verdict and not face repercussions? What are your chances when a group like the Lincoln Project can threaten to doxx lawyers who decide to represent you with the intention of forcing their withdrawal?

If these are allowed to continue, then the right to a fair trial is a dead letter, at least for those in deep-blue parts of the country who are down the pecking order in the minds of the Left. Over the years, grassroots Patriots have developed a rational basis to believe that the Left views them as deserving less than the full panoply of rights.

You don’t need the word of your Patriot Post team: Just watch Joy Reid or others on MSNBC. Outlets like CNN and MSNBC, which have lost viewers to conservative networks, now regularly target their right-of-center competition, either through hosts like Brian Stelter or contributors like Malcolm Nance (who regularly compared Donald Trump and his supporters to ISIS).

It wasn’t just Trump who has been targeted over the years with these smears. Ask Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan about how the Left lied about them. Remember how John McCain was smeared? All of those happened before Trump ever ran for office.

Ask what that long record of lies and hatred might provoke someone receiving a steady diet of that sort of talk to do if they were an ordinary person. Then ask yourself what might happen if they had actual power. Might they decide that it was a moral obligation to “fortify” elections in one way or another in order to save America’s soul?

Keep in mind, the Left has, over the last decade, gone after the First Amendment through a variety of methods, including abuse of power, corporate redlining (whether coerced by government or not), and plain-old mob violence targeting events.

The fact is, steps must be taken to preserve our rights. Part of it may involve using our First Amendment rights to have state and local officials take the logical steps to prevent intimidation, like sequestering juries. But much will have to come from grassroots Patriots convincing their fellow Americans to act despite the threats. Because if our fellow Americans are intimidated by the mob, our rights are as good as gone.


Can the FBI Be Salvaged?

The Washington, D.C.-based FBI has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids’ schools.

In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news—and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.

The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s email leaks.

In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Clinton’s own private computer contractor—CrowdStrike—to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike’s point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.

During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cellphones had mysteriously disappeared.

It was also under Comey’s directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Donald Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.

The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy—the Clinton-bought dossier—to Obama government officials and the media.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussman.

Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.

In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own “Russian Collusion” investigation.

Comey’s replacement, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.

McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.

Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical “Russian collusion” plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier—the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.

FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller’s investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of “Russian collusion,” while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.

Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.

When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a huge quasi-SWAT team—to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.

The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when it stormed the home of Project Veritas Director James O’Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden’s daughter.

The FBI—an apparent retrieval service of lost Biden family embarrassments—also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.

O’Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.

The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI’s ongoing monitoring of O’Keefe’s communications.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts.

The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.

One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat.

We can also cite the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.


The Pilgrims’ Progress – Honoring Our Forefathers on the 400th Anniversary of the First (and Most Expensive) Thanksgiving

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first Thanksgiving celebrated by our Pilgrim fathers and mothers in 1621.

If this fact is news to you, I’m not surprised. After all, there was very little fanfare last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, an event which President John Quincy Adams described as the “birthday” of our nation. But that seminal moment in world history passed with barely a mention.

This year, you’ll see more about the inflated price of Thanksgiving dinner than about the 400th anniversary of the holiday. And while it’s true that Bidenflation has made this year’s turkey feast the most expensive in living memory, no one who knows the true history of the first Thanksgiving can ever doubt that the Pilgrims paid a greater price for their meal than anything we ever will.

But you would have to know their story to understand that. And these days, the Pilgrims are being airbrushed out of our cultural memory.

The Pilgrims’ Progress from Heroes to Villains

The same wokesters who are busy removing Thomas Jefferson’s statue from New York City Hall have unfairly maligned our Pilgrim fathers and reframed the history of the nation they founded.

“There appear to be few commemorations, parades, or festivals to celebrate the Pilgrims this year, perhaps in part because revisionist charlatans of the radical left have lately claimed the previous year as America’s true founding,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said last year.

The “revisionist charlatans” he was referring to are the authors of the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which commemorates the year that the first ship arrived in the Virginia colony carrying African slaves. Recognizing the significance of the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery is certainly worthwhile, but the 1619 Project’s authors went beyond recognition and sought to “reframe” all of American history around the events of 1619. For this, they have been roundly criticized by historians who decry their many inaccuracies and revisionist interpretations (including, for example, their claim that the American Revolution was fought in order to preserve slavery in the colonies).

Most of the criticism has focused on the Project’s controversial claim (which was later scrubbed from the New York Times’ website) that 1619 is the year of “our true founding,” not 1620 when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and planted the seed of our democracy that ripened in 1776.

In a Times op-ed rebutting the critics, Nicholas Guyatt argues that “the 1619 Project radically challenges a core narrative of American history” by refuting the notion that “the story of the United States [is] a gradual unfolding of freedom.” Instead, the Project’s authors “describe a nation in which racism is persistent and protean. White supremacy shapeshifts through the nation’s history, finding new forms to continue the work of subjugation and exclusion.”

In other words, they think Abraham Lincoln got it wrong when he said our nation was “conceived in Liberty.” They think it was conceived in racism.

The new book by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, “The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story” is displayed at a New York City bookstore on November 17, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

And with the push to incorporate the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory into school curriculums, these woke revisionists are hard at work rewriting our history one school kid at a time, just as they’ve been busy for years “reframing” the history of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving.

Ann Coulter gave an excellent summary of the woke interpretation of Thanksgiving: “As every contemporary school child knows, our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet.”

She’s not joking. America’s teachers have “begun a slow, complex process of ‘unlearning’ the widely accepted American narrative of Thanksgiving,” according to Education Week. To unlearn the “myth” of Thanksgiving, educators are seeking ways “to help students appreciate colonial oppression of Natives and the violence that ensued from it.” The article helpfully includes a video of PBS NewsHours’ Judy Woodruff explaining that the “quintessential feel-good holiday” of Thanksgiving actually “perpetuates a myth and dishonors Native Americans.”

The story of Thanksgiving fares even worse on college campuses, where students are taught that it should be commemorated as a “National Day of Mourning,” not a day off for food, family, and football.

“It’s kind of just based off the genocide of the indigenous people,” one student at Minnesota’s Macalester College told the College Fix. “The history of the holiday is obviously not the best. It’s very violent and oppressive,” said another.

That is malicious and historically inaccurate garbage! It’s a flat out lie.

We know who the Pilgrims are and what they did because they meticulously documented their history for posterity.

Our knowledge of the Pilgrims comes from two primary sources. The earliest account is from Edward Winslow, whose report on the founding of the Plymouth settlement was published in London in 1622, just two years after the Pilgrims arrived in the New World. The more detailed and authoritative account comes from the Pilgrims’ second governor, William Bradford, whose poignant and eloquent history Of Plymouth Plantation, written between 1630 and 1651, tells the story of the community from their formation in England to their exile in Holland and their eventual founding of the Plymouth Colony.

Any fair reading of the primary source documentation will give you all the evidence you need to understand why we chose the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth as the date of “our true founding” and as the basis of our founding myth.

There is a reason why we chose the Pilgrims and their establishment of the Plymouth Colony in 1620 as our origin story, not the Virginians who settled in Jamestown over a decade before that date. Our reasoning had everything to do with the Pilgrims’ lack of racism. Americans have always aspired to be on the right side of history, and the Pilgrims were nothing if not righteous.

Their story embodies our most sacred American values. Like Aeneas fleeing the fall of Troy, the Pilgrims saw themselves as fleeing a cataclysmic conflagration about to engulf Europe. And like the Roman hero, they too hoped to forge a new civilization with a spark from the dying embers of the old one.




Thursday, November 25, 2021

International Olympic Committee Says Biological Male Trans Athletes Should Not Have to Lower Testosterone to Compete in Women’s Events

The International Olympic Committee recommended that sports organizations allow biologically male, transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports without lowering their testosterone levels.

The committee stated that no athlete should be excluded from competition based on unverified, alleged, or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to biological sex in a Tuesday report. The report says athletes should compete in sports based on their self-determined gender identity and should not be subject to “targeted testing” to determine biological sex.

“Athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status,” the report said.

The International Olympic Committee went on to state that athletes should never be pressured to undergo “medically unnecessary treatments,” including hormone therapy, which some transgender people use to lower their testosterone to the level to that of a biological female.

A Sports Councils’ Equality Group report released in September found that biologically male athletes have unfair advantages over female athletes retained even after a biological male undergoes testosterone suppression to affirm a female gender identity.

The Sports Councils’ Equality Group report found that “transgender women are on average likely to retain physical advantage in terms of physique, stamina, and strength.”

The International Olympic Committee report is not legally binding, but it replaced the committee’s own 2015 guidelines that limited athletes’ testosterone levels, NBC News reported. Before 2015, the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines would, in some cases, require genital surgery prior to eligibility for competition.


Christian florist settling with same-sex couple after nearly a decade fighting iconic religious liberty case

Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman has agreed to settle with the same-sex couple that sued her for refusing to serve their wedding – capping off nearly a decade of litigation in one of the most iconic First Amendment cases this century.

On Thursday afternoon, Stutzman's attorneys sent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) an agreement to withdraw her Supreme Court petition in exchange for them declining to pursue further legal action. The 76-year-old grandmother told Fox News that she's retiring and leaving her business, Arlene's Flowers, to its employees.

The settlement, obtained by Fox News, shows that both parties have agreed to its terms.

As part of the agreement, Stutzman will pay the couple – Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed – $5,000 and they will cease pursuing damages against her business and personal assets.

In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Stutzman said that her faith was "not for sale" and that it was time for her to step aside as other religious liberty cases made their way through the courts.

"We're all in trouble – whether we're religious or not – when we don't have the freedom to live consistent with our faith and our beliefs, when I don't have the freedom to run my business according to my beliefs, live my life according to my beliefs," she told Fox News.

"Rob and Curt have every right to live the way they do and the way they feel with their beliefs, and I'm just asking for that same [right]."

Meanwhile, advocates like the ACLU have held up cases like Stutzman's as being part of an ongoing struggle for civil rights. "No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are," Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU lawyer representing the couple, said in July. "Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws."

On Thursday, Ingersoll and Freed released a statement that read: "We took on this case because we were worried about the harm being turned away would cause LGBTQ people. We are glad the Washington Supreme Court rulings will stay in place to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination and should be served by businesses like anyone else. We are also pleased to support our local PFLAG’s work to support LGBTQ people in the Tri-Cities area. It was painful to be turned away and we are thankful that this long journey for us is finally over."

Starting in 2013, Stutzman's case was litigated amid a heated debate over same-sex relationships as well as the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Eight years later, the court declined to hear Stutzman's appeal – leaving in place a lower court decision that required religious creative professionals to serve same-sex ceremonies in Washington state.

Stutzman, along with Colorado baker Jack Phillips, have become heroes for religious conservatives seeking Christian examples of flouting cultural pressures. Besides public backlash, Stutzman also faced potentially crippling financial consequences as the ACLU targeted her personal assets in its lawsuit.

Thursday's settlement amount is significantly lower than Stutzman's attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) feared she might pay. But the intensely personal nature of this case will likely leave long-lasting impacts on the parties involved and the nation as a whole.


What Is It with Hollywood’s Love Affair with Child Abusing Perverts?

The Rittenhouse affair

Hollywood's brightest stars are shining their love down on disgusting perverts for all to see. When it comes to choosing between a convicted child rapist and a normal citizen, they go all Lincoln Project. And we normal people should respond accordingly.

There's reliably pinko star Mark Ruffalo, who tweeted: "We come together to mourn the lives lost to the same racist system that devalues Black lives and devalued the lives of Anthony and JoJo. #ReimagineKenosha." Who is "we," sucker? You mean both Bruce Banner and the Hulk? Because you can count the rest of us out. And can someone explain how it would be possible to "devalue" the likes of a convicted child rapist? What was his value? Cute nickname, too – JoJo.

America's sweetheart, Reese Witherspoon, was outraged that normal people had the ability to prevent convicted child rapists from killing them: "No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe ... for any of us?" Actually, citizens should be able to do all these things in conformity with the law regarding self-defense against convicted child rapists. I'm sure a "JoJo" would totally get by her armed security; she at least has the excuse that she might have just been being a jerk again.

And then there is the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, with his pronouns in his bio, mourning the loss to humanity that was Kyle's lawful exercise of the right to self-defense against a convicted child rapist attacking a minor: "Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 27, murdered August 25th, 2020. Rest In Peace." You know, Disney is supposed to be targeted toward kids – I guess Pedro misunderstood the concept. Perhaps we can all look forward to a pretty dark plotline involving Baby Yoda next season – if any of us watch.

Maria Shriver, a Kennedy kid once married to withered Hollywood action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, had to explain to her adult son – presumably not the one Ah-nuld spawned after impregnating his maid – how it was somehow possible for normal people to defend themselves against convicted child rapists: "I'm trying to take a beat to digest the Rittenhouse verdict. My son just asked me how it's possible that he didn't get charged for anything. How is that possible? I don't have an answer for him."

Maybe a Kennedy is not the right person to decry folks getting away with murder. And apparently, the only people who should have guns are the armed guards defending your family compound. Look, I don't blame the Kennedys for using people with guns to protect themselves – two of them were murdered by leftists. But I do resent that they don't seem to think the rest of us get to protect ourselves from being murdered by leftists, too.

On the plus side, at least Alec Baldwin seems to have had nothing to say publicly about Kyle. But, of course, he probably will.

Oh, and as of early the next morning after the Waukesha massacre, want to guess if any of them had spared a tweet for the crushed kids and run-over dancing grannies? Maria Shriver did, and good for her. She seems more clueless, cloistered, and entitled than evil. Mark, Reese, and Pedro seemed not so chatty about this latest atrocity. Hey, gotta support the narrative!

In any case, how totally on-brand this all is.

Why is the constellation of Hollywood stars so all in on backing the pedos? And these aren't edgy artists but mainstream actors who put out what is purportedly family entertainment. Ruffalo does comic book movies. Pascal does Disney junk. Witherspoon does big-budget Hallmark movies. What gives?

I consulted with acting legend Nick Searcy, who does not play the pinko game, and whose new film on the fake insurrection, "Capitol Punishment," comes out Thanksgiving Day. He observes that the studios, in league with publicists, often make sure all the stars get the memo on the right take on the issue du jour. And few stars push back because a lot of Hollywood people come to Tinseltown young. They have little life experience, and then they get some attention and they never grow up. Many dropped out of high school and are extremely sensitive about that because all the executives they deal with have Ivy League degrees.

Adopting leftist poses is an easy way to get in the in-club, to be treated like their views matter, to be taken seriously. That's really what they want; the only needier people than actors are stand-up comics. They have this huge emotional void and they fill it with leftist nonsense because they get rewarded for doing it. And the fact that people expressing normal views – conservatives – get blacklisted is yet another incentive to go along and get along.

So, what do we normal people do? Well, we probably shouldn't be giving money to people who hate us. If you are still shelling out bucks for Marvel movies and woke Star Wars, you are empowering and paying for the culture war against you. Does it seem adverse to conservative principles to avoid alleged entertainment put out by people just because they hate us? It was once, but if there's a line to be drawn, it's supporting convicted child rapists.

Time to draw the line.


Cancel Culture Claims Another U.S. President

In 2020, cancel culture claimed scores of victims, from statues and monuments to food brands and more. But the push to continue removing culturally and historically significant items from society continued unabated in 2021.

Take what happened in New York City on Monday, for example.

After standing in city hall for 187 years, a statue of Thomas Jefferson was removed following a vote from a mayoral commission to take it down because the third president was a slave owner.

About a dozen workers with Marshall Fine Arts spent several hours carefully removing the painted plaster monument from its pedestal inside the City Council chambers and surrounding it with sections of foam and wooden boards.

They then lowered the massive structure down the stairs leading to the building’s first-floor rotunda with a pulley system and ushered the Founding Father out the back door.

The 1833 statue will be on a long-term loan to the New York Historical Society, which plans to have Jefferson’s model survive in its lobby and reading room.

Keri Butler, executive director of the Public Design Commission that voted to banish the statue, at first tried to block the press from witnessing its removal. Butler relented after members of the mayor’s office and City Council intervened.

The commission also attempted to vote on the statue’s removal without a public hearing on the controversial move until The Post revealed the plan. (New York Post)

As Mollie Hemingway pointed out last year, former President Trump warned in 2017 this would happen and was mocked for believing the cultural Marxists would move on from Confederate statues to former presidents.

Rep. Thomas Massie shared the story, likening it to George Orwell's "1984."




Amazing: Murderous black driver suddenly becomes white

Below is how Darrel Brooks initially appeared:

image from

Since then some media outlets have deleted his image entirely, other have lightened his skin colour and some have gone the whole hog and rendered him as white. Photo editing software has a lot to answer for. Identifying criminals as black is politically incorrect. The lie prevails over the truth that blacks are a very troublesome population segment.



Progressive Elites: Who Needs Them?

Grammar schools indoctrinate our young children, teaching them to hate America. District attorneys let hardened criminals out of jail. Crowds rioting in the streets are described by the libstream media as ‘peaceful protesters.’

When you contemplate what has occurred in the U.S. over the last 18 months, incredibly, it no longer even seems like our own nation.

Lunatics on the Loose

The lunacy is without end: Thousands of off-the-wall assertions, end runs around the law, and media flights of complete fantasy. The illegal, creepy, unpatriotic, absurd positions of the Left are unfolding at an increasingly faster pace. Whether it’s renaming schools, defaming Dr. Seuss, defacing property, pulling down statues – even of Gandhi, Grant, and Lincoln – desecrating church symbols, or re-assigning the sex of a plastic toy potato, the Left know no bounds.

take our poll - story continues below
Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?
The vital voices, our elected representatives, in positions to call them out, too often say little or nothing.

A presidential administration, run by who knows who, undermines Donald Trump’s “1776 Project” — which offered a balanced perspective on American history — while supporting the misdirected “1619 Project.” Launched in 2017 by New York Times, ‘1619’ asserts that the ‘true’ founding of the U.S. began when slaves were first shipped across the Atlantic Ocean.


Exactly what sort of tomfoolery is occurring? Can there be a common denominator to the wide variety of heartless and heart-sickening behaviors that we’ve now witnessed for months on end, and, on a lesser level, for years? Actually, the answer yes, a common denominator to it all does exist.

The common denominator of Leftist behavior is to thoroughly quash the opposition, ignore due process, vanquish the U.S. Constitution, overturn the right of habeas corpus, contort ‘one person one vote,’ and much more, so that we are left in tatters as a nation. Each and every activity of the Left, from tiny to gargantuan, in one form or another, is designed to diminish the strength, status, and sovereignty of the United States.

Whether it’s seeking to pack the Supreme Court, smear conservative Supreme Court nominees, besmirch local officials, overrun the nation with illegal immigrants, cancel the careers of people who’ve made one offensive statement, even made 40 years ago, and so on, all such activities have the same common denominator.

“What is Best for You”

As the U.S. declines, the global elite believe that they move closer and closer to their goal of having a ‘one world government.’ Led by global elites – Leftist multi-million dollar career politicians and Leftist billionaires, who pull the strings around the world – such a government, allegedly, will produce the utopian society that Left urgently desires.

Utopias don’t exist. They could not work if they did exist, and would end up enslaving their citizens. Study Utopia by Sir Thomas More, The Republic by Plato, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, or any other treatise on supposedly ideal societies. You will rapidly understand that the elite inexorably regard the citizenry with disdain, nothing more than serfs – worker drones – who need to act according to how they are manipulated and who will do exactly what they are told.

By any measure, the global elite’s decades-long quest for a one-world government is quite far from Americans ideals. It is so distant from what our Constitution guarantees, and so far from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that it is beyond chilling.

The Quest for Dominance

If America falls, the whole world goes down, except for the Chinese Communists. They will control at least half of the globe, and their form of government is going to be worse than what the global elites have in mind. The Chinese Communists are already experimenting with creating biologically enhanced ‘super soldiers’, more powerful than the average soldier.

The Chinese Communists have imprisoned thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in slave labor camps. They already have surveillance cameras in their larger cities to a degree that you cannot imagine. In time, it might be shown that they intentionally released the Wuhan virus on the world. Who can say right now?

The global elites, and the Chinese Communists, must be contained and, in time, stopped. It will be a monumental task, but we stopped Hitler and Mussolini, we overcame the monolithic Soviet Union, and we can prevail now if we can reach the rising generations. We need for Gen Xers and Millennials to somehow break away from the Left’s cultural stranglehold. And as they do, they will find that least 75 million Trump voters will be on their side.


Rise of Black Supremacy

“The biggest terror threat in this country is white men, and we have to start doing something about them,” said Don Lemon on CNN. For his daily anti-white rants, Lemon reportedly earns $4 million per year. He is not the only TV “journalist” who hates white people. “[Kyle Rittenhouse is] being prosecuted in front of a nearly all-white jury, before a white judge in a country where white vigilantism is often excused, if not worshipped,” said Joy Reid on MSNBC. “This country was built on the idea that white men have a particular kind of freedom that only they have.”

Lemon and Reid typify a new breed of black TV reporters who specialize in overt racial attacks on White America, accusing it of being the number one problem facing the nation. “Joy Reid is a racist sociopath,” wrote Miranda Devine in the New York Post. “Every night she spews hatred against white people. Shame on MSNBC for elevating such a hate-filled racist to prime time.”

If white reporters made similar attacks on Black America, they would be convicted of white supremacy and fired immediately. How is Reid getting away with her attacks on White America without losing her job? “For some unfathomable reason,” says Devine, “she has Teflon protection at the network.” That protection derives from a new element in the American social landscape, black supremacy. The acceptance of anti-white slurs made by Lemon and Reid serve as proof that black supremacy has more clout than white supremacy.

Not only do we have nonstop reporting from the media about white supremacy, even the president has complained about it. The reality is just the opposite. For at least ten years, we have been witnessing open season on white people. A big scandal occurred when a New York Times editorial board member tweeted “cancel white people.” Political commentator Bill O’Reilly said the racist tweet was consistent with the Times’ editorial philosophy that “white men have destroyed the country.” It comes as no surprise to anyone who has been watching current social trends. Today’s Caucasians, especially males, are being demonized and marginalized by the Left and its media enablers. The Left, says author Ben Shapiro, wants to portray America as “an incurable mass of bigoted whites.” If white supremacy existed, this would never happen.

The tables have turned. Instead of whites being accorded special privileges as in the past, what we are witnessing now is black supremacy. “More whites have begun talking about themselves as a racially oppressed majority,” reports CNN. “In a widely publicized 2011 survey, white Americans said they suffer from racial discrimination more than blacks.” African-Americans are accorded special treatment across the board. “Blackness has become a tremendous asset in contemporary America,” says Ben Shapiro. “Victim status is treasured in America, and black skin guarantees automatic victim status.”

Being black today, Shapiro concludes, grants privileges ranging from landing coveted college scholarships to affirmative action hiring quotas to corporate diversity training that portrays blacks in a positive light and whites negatively…and to the toleration of racist TV reporters like Lemon and Reid. It even applies to the White House, says David Horowitz, author of Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream. “Barack Obama was an inexperienced presidential candidate,” says Horowitz, “who wouldn’t be elected dogcatcher if he wasn’t black.”

A blaring example of black supremacy can be found in today’s television commercials. Blacks comprise 12 percent of the population but appear in 90 percent of commercials. It has been suggested that a person arriving from another planet would assume after watching the tube that most of the U.S. population must be black. Diversity is one thing, but this is overcompensation driven by black supremacy.

A more insidious example of black supremacy arose after a number of Asians were assaulted in New York, San Francisco, and other cities. An attempt was made by the Left to blame the attacks on white supremacy, despite the undisputed fact that all of the reported assaults were perpetrated by blacks. One might reasonably ask, how can this be white supremacy if blacks were responsible? An answer was offered by Colorado college professor Jennifer Ho: “Anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-black racism: white supremacy. So when a black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.”

Really? When a black person commits a crime, black supremacy often succeeds in relieving that person of responsibility by blaming white people who had nothing to do with it. A similar argument has been offered as proof that the Rittenhouse shootings were motivated by white supremacy, despite the fact that all of the victims were white. Biden himself called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist. If whiteness were supreme, no one would dare to point a finger at Rittenhouse regardless of his motives.

The notion of white supremacy gained currency because leftists have blamed whites for most of the problems afflicting the black community. Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley, who is black, has accused civil rights leaders of being more interested in “blaming the problems of blacks on white racism” than getting to the real causes. If we wanted to be truthful about the causes of social disruption in the U.S., we would have to point a finger not at White America but rather at the African-American community itself. In spite of a continuing history of violence, blacks are not being held accountable for their behavior. It is not politically correct to criticize African-Americans, and if you attempt to do so, you are automatically labeled a racist. There is no question that blacks lag behind other groups in economic success, safe neighborhoods, education, and family cohesiveness. The question is, who or what is responsible?

The Left insists that the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of white people. Not so, says David Horowitz. It is not white privilege that’s preventing blacks from doing better, Horowitz argues. It is African-American behavior, such as the propensity to commit violent crimes, the inability to build more intact families, and the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. Black women do not take responsibility for having children out of wedlock and black fathers do not take responsibility for supporting their children. Many teenagers in the black subculture hold themselves back by deliberately rejecting mainstream “white” values. This self-destructive behavior—not white privilege—is ruining the lives of millions of black kids, says Horowitz. So far, black supremacy has succeeded in hiding this reality under the radar.

“A doctrine of black supremacy,” said Martin Luther King, “is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy.” It would be nice to get rid of both of them. How to do it is the difficult question.


UK: Offenders who kill emergency services workers to be given mandatory life sentences

Mandatory life sentences will be introduced for offenders who cause the death of emergency services workers while committing a crime, the government has announced.

The law change is a triumph for Lissie Harper, who began campaigning after the death of her husband PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.

Ms Harper has said the sentences given to the three teenagers responsible for her husband’s death were “despicable”.

PC Harper, 28, died after he was caught in a strap attached to the back of a car driven by the teens and dragged for a mile down a country road as they fled the scene of a quad bike theft on the night of 15 August 2019.

Henry Long, 19, was sentenced to 16 years, and 18-year-olds Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers got 13 years, for manslaughter. They were all cleared of murder by the jury.

The sentences prompted Ms Harper to lobby the government to better protect emergency services workers on the front line.

Her campaign was supported by the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank-and-file officers.

She said her late husband would be proud of the law change, which has been called Harper’s Law.

Ms Harper said: “Emergency services workers require extra protection. I know all too well how they are put at risk and into the depths of danger on a regular basis on behalf of society. That protection is what Harper’s Law will provide and I am delighted that it will soon become a reality.”

The law is expected to be added to the existing Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, meaning it is likely to get Royal Assent and become law early next year.

Announcing the change, Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, said: “This government is on the side of victims and their families and we want our emergency services to know that we’ll always have their back.”

He added: “I pay tribute to Lissie Harper’s remarkable campaign.”

Priti Patel, the home secretary, said she was shocked by PC Harper’s killing and thanked Ms Harper for her “dedication”.

“Those who seek to harm our emergency service workers represent the very worst of humanity and it is right that future killers be stripped of the freedom to walk our streets with a life sentence,” she said.

Police officers, National Crime Agency officers, prison guards, custody officers, firefighters and paramedics are all defined as emergency services workers.

The courts are already bound to impose life sentences for murder, and can also give them for violent offences.




Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Far-right ideas are gaining a renewed respectability in France

Liking your country as it is is apparently "far Right". Can anyone deny that Muslim immigration degrades the civility of a country?

“Nationalism is the safeguarding of all those treasures that are at threat without a foreign army crossing the border, without the physical invasion of territory. It is the defence of the nation against the stranger from within.” Thus wrote Charles Maurras, a reactionary and anti-Semitic French author, in “My Political Ideas” in 1937. After the disgrace and trauma of Vichy France, which officially branded Jews the stranger within, such thinking was for most of the post-war period banished to the fringes of French intellectual life. For decades it was intellos from the political left who dominated the salons and newspaper columns of Paris.

Today, however, France is seeing a disconcerting revival of ultranationalist thinking, and with it the rehabilitation of once-ostracised reactionary writers. Robert Laffont, a respected Paris publisher, reprinted the collected works of Maurras in 2018. This year a right-wing French publisher reissued “The Great Replacement”, which first came out in 2011; its author, Renaud Camus, is a hard-right writer currently appealing a conviction for incitement to racial hatred. As some nativists allege of America, Mr Camus argues that France is undergoing a demographic “conquest”, in this case involving the relentless replacement of the “French people” with those from its former colonies.

Assorted micro-movements and individuals on the extreme and ultra-Catholic right have long claimed to be the inheritors of reactionary fin-de-siècle thought. But these peripheral voices were dignified with neither serious scrutiny nor polite debate. Now, outlets such as Valeurs Actuelles, a right-wing magazine, and CNews, a French 24-hour news channel likened to Fox News, discuss little else. Mr Camus has turned from recluse to television-studio guest. Eric Zemmour, a pundit and polemicist, doubles as a populist radical hoping to stand in next April’s presidential election. His latest bestseller, “France Has Not Had Its Final Word”, is a lament for “the death of France as we know it”. Dressed in an intellectual veneer, the book identifies at every turn a threat to “the French people, their customs, their history, their state, their civility, their civilisation”.

Two sinister underlying obsessions link this contemporary discourse to the earlier reactionary and nationalist French essayists. The first is a belief in an immutable “eternal France”. Maurras, who was a leading figure in Action Française, a political movement that was founded in 1899 to defend “true France”, termed this le pays réel (the real country): a land of church spires, ancestral soil and family tradition. It was to be distinguished, in his view, from le pays légal (the legal country), or the artificial structures of the anticlerical republican administration.

Old enemies and new

Identity in this sense is not a fluid multiple construct, but rather is fixed and rooted in the earth. “The land gives us discipline, and we are the extension of the ancestors,” declared Maurice Barrès, another influential nationalist writer who was close to Maurras, in 1899. The iconography of Vichy France later embraced this blood-and-soil identity, celebrating rural life, church, family and work on the land. Indeed, Mr Zemmour entitles a chapter of his latest book “The Land and the Dead”, after a speech of that name by Barrès. In it, Mr Zemmour declares that the three members of a French family who were murdered in a terrorist attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, and who were buried in Israel, did not belong to France.

The second obsession is paranoia about decline, and the failure of elites to protect French identity. For Maurras, the chief menace to it was that enemy within: Jews, Protestants, Freemasons and foreigners. For Barrès, the enemy was principally without: Germany, and its military might. For Mr Camus and Mr Zemmour, it is above all Islam. Echoing the “great replacement theory”, Mr Zemmour claims that, in today’s France, “an Islamic civilisation is replacing a people from a Christian, Greco-Roman civilisation”. “Veiled women”, Mr Camus recently told a tv interviewer, “are the flags of conquest, of colonisation”.

Today’s reactionaries tap into a deep undercurrent of fear and paranoia in France, but also of anti-Semitism. An unapologetic anti-Semite, Maurras defended the French army’s accusations against Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French captain wrongly convicted by the French army of high treason in 1894. That was a time, among the Catholic and military French elite, of intense anxiety about spies and traitors, and of conspiracy theories about Jewish financiers. In “Jewish France”, a virulent anti-Semitic tract published in 1886, Edouard Drumont had warned of the threat of a “Jewish conquest” of France, led by a “hateful, gold-hungry” people bent on bringing about the “painful agony of a generous nation”.

Himself of Jewish and Algerian descent, Mr Zemmour occupies an ambiguous place in this tradition. By hinting today that Dreyfus may not have been innocent, or defending Vichy for “protecting” French Jews—because it deported foreign ones first—Mr Zemmour is confecting not a serious historical assessment but a studied provocation. As well as distorting history, this is a way of “signalling his link to a pillar of French society, which is the army, and to a particular set of right-wing values”, suggests Jean Garrigues, a historian at the University of Orléans.

That such views are given a legitimate airing is new, and disquieting. Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the hard-right party that his daughter, Marine Le Pen, rebranded and now leads, appalled the salons of Paris and was treated accordingly. Mr Zemmour, who is well-read and flatters the French regard for the cultivé, is handled with respect. Aspiring presidential candidates are invited by debate moderators, with scarcely a blush, to offer their perspective on the “great replacement theory”.

Moreover, France lacks the counterbalancing intellectual voices of the past. “At the time of Maurras, Émile Zola and republicans fought back. But the intellectual left and radical left in France have been swept away,” says Sudhir Hazareesingh, a political scientist at Oxford University and author of “How the French Think”. Today, no French thinker has the towering stature of Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Michel Foucault or others in turtlenecks and trench coats on the left bank whose influence lingered well beyond their lifetimes.

No left-wing political leader has a commanding influence, either. In this void, toxic theories are resuscitated, and used to frame discussion, without robust or persuasive rebuke. As elsewhere, reason and rationality seem, like contempt, to be fragile tools against the potent narrative force of populist reactionaries. The decline of the public intellectual on the French left removes one more line of defence.


Black killer suported by evil Leftist woman

So much hate

image from

The hater

image from

The killer

A woman has resigned from her job after a sarcasm-laden rant following the deaths of five people in a Christmas parade rampage.

An Illinois Democrat has been blasted for describing the deadly Christmas parade rampage in Wisconsin as “karma” for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Mary Lemanski has now resigned from her position with the Democratic Party in DuPage County after her comments were widely shared, Anne Sommerkamp, the organisation’s executive director, told Fox News in an email.

The social media director began her online tirade by snarkily dismissing the tragedy as “just self-defence.”

“It was probably just self-defence,” Ms Lemanski wrote in a tweet that appears to have since been deleted, the New York Post reported.

“Living in Wisconsin, he probably felt threatened,” another tweet read — referring to the driver, Darrell E Brooks, who is facing five counts of first-degree homicide over the Waukesha incident, which left five people facing and dozens hurt.

“I’m sure he didn’t want to hurt anyone. He came to help people,” she added in her sarcasm-laced missive.

Ms Lemanski appeared to be mocking Mr Rittenhouse’s self-defence claim before the 18-year-old was acquitted Friday of charges of homicide, attempted homicide and reckless endangerment in the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, on Aug. 25, 2020.

Her comments were blasted online.

“Seriously how does it feel to completely flush your career down the toilet via tweet? Was it fun?” one user wrote.

“What career. She’s yeah and will always be. The entire country will see her tweets tomorrow and she will never recover,” another said.

A third user wrote: “I hope you never know the pain of losing a child. I hope the parents of those lost today in Waukesha never know you. I feel sad for both you and them.”


Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts

When my mom was 90, she was hospitalized for a procedure and started sundowning every night. For those who haven’t dealt with an elderly person, “sundowning” occurs when night falls and the older person starts hallucinating. Being in an unfamiliar environment triggers it, even in people who are not generally suffering from dementia.

What fascinated me about my mom’s hallucinations was how real they were to her. She told me that “the Germans” had entered her hospital room through the window, surrounded her bed, and been conversing with her. I took her to the window and showed her that (a) it was a non-opening window and (b) she was on the third floor. Mom was unable to accept this irrefutable evidence that her nighttime escapades with “the Germans” could not have happened. The experience was so real to her that it transcended all countervailing facts.

With that anecdote in mind — about a failing mind struggling with transitory dementia — I’d like you to look at this meme that’s popping up on leftist social media:

image from

The meme repeats a tweet from Santiago Mayer. Who is Mayer? He’s an Act Blue operative who identifies himself on Twitter, not by the American flag, but by the Mexican flag.

So, Mayer made this statement and it’s being wildly shared all over social media. What’s important about it is that every fact within it is wrong.

Allow me to break it down:

1. The implication that Kyle committed a crime by crossing state lines. In America, we citizens can freely cross state lines. There is no penalty in America for doing so. It’s part of our constitutional system. When I left California for the Southeast, I did not have to report myself to the local police station. And of course, the whole “crossed state lines” mantra is ludicrous coming from the party that disavows national borders.

2. The “illegally” acquired gun. The reason the judge dropped the gun charge against Rittenhouse is that the rifle was neither illegally-acquired nor was Rittenhouse underage. The rules are different for long guns, and the measuring tape established that, when Rittenhouse entered Wisconsin (a mere 20 minutes from his home), and his friend loaned him the rifle, neither broke the law.

3. The “assault rife.” There is no such thing as an “assault rifle.” The “AR” in the name comes from the 15th model that Armalite Rifle manufactured in the 1950s. It’s now the industry standard.

I’ve also seen people refer to the weapon Rittenhouse was carrying as an “automatic weapon.” That’s not true either.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning that you have to pull the trigger for every shot. If it were automatic, pulling the trigger would release an unending stream of bullets until either the magazine emptied itself or the user took his finger off the trigger. Indeed, Rittenhouse showed exemplary trigger control at all times.

The AR-15 is beloved because (a) it has minimal kick and (b) it can be blinged out like crazy. The bling seems to be what scares lefties. This cartoon, about a chihuahua’s self-image, shows how lefties view an AR-15, compared to a less fancy rifle:

4. “Attended a MAGA rally.” Nothing that happened in Kenosha was comparable to a MAGA rally. No MAGA rally has ever involved burning a whole city down. People are cheerful, behave well, and clean up after themselves.

I know that leftists will point to January 6 as proof that what I just said is untrue but that is not a working analogy. First, of the more than 100,000 people who appeared in D.C. that day, upwards of 90% were far from the Capitol and were behaving in typical MAGA fashion: Cheerful and lawful.

Second, there’s good reason to believe that the FBI, as is its wont, had provocateurs, agitators, and agents in the crowd trying to entrap people.

Third, those arrested on January 6 were not armed.

Fourth, even at the height of the protest, nothing was burned or broken.

Fifth, the only violent death occurred when a Capitol police officer shot an unarmed woman in cold blood.

5. “Picked a fight.” Kyle did not “pick a fight.” The undisputed evidence at the trial, from the prosecution’s own witnesses and video footage, showed that Rittenhouse offered first aid, shied away from any conflict, ran as fast as he could away from Rosenbaum’s intended assault, and was also trying desperately to run away from Huber’s and Grosskreutz’s assaults.

When it comes to picking a fight, that same testimony showed that those whom he shot attacked Kyle first. We also know, even though the jurors didn’t, that the three whom Rittenhouse shot were people with long records of violence and perversion. While their conduct was not on trial, their records were consistent with their behavior their night.

6. Racism! And of course, the implication that this is about race is wrong, too. Not only is Kyle White, so are/were the people he shot. (See image, above.)

So, as I said, every “fact” in that meme is wrong. And here’s something else to chew on: If a Black teen had been in exactly the same situation as Rittenhouse — a young man who, seeing rioters destroy his father’s town, drove 20 minutes to try to protect businesses, armed himself with a legal rifle, and fired back when three felons attacked him with intent to kill — MAGA people would have been as strongly supportive of that teen as they are of Rittenhouse.

For conservatives, the principle at stake isn’t race; it’s the right to self-defense that is an integral part of being a citizen in a free society.

Another principle is that if the adults don’t act, children and teens who have been raised right and believe in a law-abiding system, will bravely step up and try to do what the adults refuse to do.

Oh, and another principle is that leftists are not only flogging the Rittenhouse case to stir up racial hostilities, they’re also using it to try once again to end the Second Amendment, not through a constitutional process, but by stirring up enough citizen outrage to ignore the Constitution.

The media feel their power. Their goal, as I’ve written before, is to replicate Charles Manson’s Helter-Skelter tactic: Sow dissent between America’s different races to create a race war. Once that war has leveled America, in the case of the media and their water carriers in Congress (the Squad and other morons), they imagine themselves as the leaders of a brave new socialist world. Racism will be over because everyone, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Purple, and Green, will be firmly under the jackbooted feet of our new totalitarian leaders.

It is up to us to confront the lies, and to help those who have not become so demented that they cannot see the truth: And the truth is that we are being lied to and used so that ordinary Americans become the hate-filled engines of their own destruction.

I have a suggestion for confronting them. A wise man I knew used to say of interpersonal squabbles, “Don’t get furious; get curious.” E.g., if your spouse says something you see as an insult, before you get angry, ask an open-ended question to ensure that your spouse really meant to insult you. It’s a good policy, it prevents fights, and it makes you look like the mature peacemaker.

In this post, because it’s a monologue I called out the lies for what they are. However, if you’re conversing with leftists, in person or via social media, all that you must do is politely ask them to direct you to the facts supporting their conclusions.

Yesterday, although I normally never engage on Facebook, I couldn’t resist playing this game. Someone commented on a friend’s post that Judge Schroeder wore a black robe to hide his white robe. I posted a polite (albeit slightly dishonest) reply. “I haven’t been following this much (that was the dishonesty). I assume you’re saying this about the judge because Kyle Rittenhouse is a White supremacist, so the judge, by making rulings in his favor, must also be a White supremacist. Can you give me the facts about Rittenhouse’s White supremacy so I can understand what happened?”

The person who called Judge Schroeder a KKK member deleted his comment without even attempting to answer

Don’t get furious; get curious. Politely push them to share with you the facts supporting their claims. And if they return with provably incorrect “facts,” politely respond with irrefutable truth. Lots of them are going to be sundowners who cannot recognize the truth but others will be like Bari Weiss and realize that they’ve been the victims of a giant con.


Why The Left Always Projects

The Left is addicted to projection—the psycho-political syndrome of attributing all of one’s own sins to one’s opponents. The woke apparently do this out of some Freudian effort to square the circle of their own guilt or sense of privilege, by fobbing off their own fearful realities onto others. It is the atheist version of confession or medieval penance. In addition, in the spirit of “always being on the offense,” wokists know that those who slander do so most successfully when they lodge exactly those charges most familiar and applicable to themselves.

The Privileged Damn Privilege

Take for example, the worn-out charge of “privilege,” as in the phrase “check your privilege.” This trope originates exclusively from the Left. Purportedly, it signifies a rigged system in which white males have gained, unfairly and undeservedly, “privilege” to exercise cultural, economic, political, and social control over the “other”—occasionally defined as women, more often “people of color,” and most frequently African Americans.

How odd, given that by any indicator the political Left is the party of wealth and privilege. The wealthiest ZIP codes are found in blue states such as California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. Twenty-six of the 27 wealthiest congressional districts, gauged by per capita incomes, are represented by liberal Democrats.

Registered Democrats on average have higher incomes than their Republican counterparts. Democratic presidential candidates have vastly outspent Republicans over the last 20 years. Note that the old liberal saw about “dark money” has steadily disappeared from the left-wing lexicon (nothing is darker than Mark Zuckerberg’s infusions of cash to warp particular voting precincts). Likewise, in the once trendy academic trifecta of “race, class, and gender,” class” has been dropped quietly.

The most elite and wealthy institutions in America are predominantly liberal bastions: Silicon Valley, entertainment, universities, professional sports, Wall Street, the mainstream media, and foundations. Most “people of color,” who are the loudest about focusing on the evils of privilege and lack of equity, are themselves multimillionaires or multibillionaires, such as the Obamas, Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Jay-Z, or Meghan Markle.

Accusing an entire group—white people, or conservatives, or Trump supporters—of being privileged deflects the apparent shame of elitism away from oneself on the cheap. After all, accusing some part-time lecturer or Trump deplorable of “white privilege” is a lot easier, both psychologically and materially, than giving up a nanny, trading in the gas-guzzling big Mercedes, or just saying no to private jets.

The elite accuser knows especially how to level such charges given his own intimacy with what wealth, power, and influence bring. Worse still, the projectionist feels he is making the greatest sacrifice of all by his empty confessions—even as he is a beneficiary of the rigged system that he demands be ended.

When Barack Obama flies to Glasgow to lecture the western world’s climate-wrecking middle class that it is going to have to be content with less—while acknowledging that his own wealth and privilege mean he will suffer less than others—one wonders why Obama simply does not, right now pledge to live in just one mansion rather than two?

After all, if Obama urges the middle to class to cut back on energy use and to forfeit lifestyle privileges, why wouldn’t Obama himself set the moral example, given his huge carbon footprint. Why would he be so cynical to warn the world that our shores will soon be inundated shortly after he himself bought a shoreline estate?

The answer, of course, is that by constantly projecting their covetousness onto others, the woke feel that they can enjoy their own privileges with diminished guilt, claim the psychological higher moral ground, and, as performance artists, show they suffer on our behalf as “traitors to their class.”




Monday, November 22, 2021

More British troops deployed to guard Polish border amid Belarus migrant crisis

What the devil are British troops doing on the borders of Belarus in the heart of Europe? Can Europe not look after its own problems?

More British troops will be deployed to Poland's border with Belarus to help address the migrant crisis.

Thousands of migrants, mainly from the Middle East, have sought to cross into the European Union at the frontier between Poland and Belarus in recent weeks.

The UK and allies have accused Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko of engineering the crisis, with defence secretary Ben Wallace saying the migrants were being used as “pawns”.

The Daily Telegraph reported that about 100 soldiers from the Royal Engineers will be sent to help physically reinforce the Polish border although details of the deployment are still being worked out.

Mr Wallace, who visited British troops training in Poland, told the newspaper: “Can you imagine going from Iraq, to here, onto a border, not much clothes, not much food, not much money, and then being a pawn in the Belarusian leader’s game? I think that’s heartless and I think it is cruel.”

Western governments have accused Mr Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, of deliberately encouraging the migrants to breach its borders in retaliation for sanctions the EU has imposed in response to his repressive rule.


Britain outlaws Palestinian militant group Hamas, bringing UK stance in line with US, EU

Britain's interior minister Priti Patel has banned the Palestinian militant group Hamas in a move that brings the UK's stance on Gaza's rulers in line with the United States and the European Union.

"Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry, as well as terrorist training facilities," Ms Patel said in a statement. "That is why today I have acted to proscribe Hamas in its entirety."

The organisation will be banned under the Terrorism Act.

Anyone expressing support for Hamas, flying its flag or arranging meetings for the organisation would be in breach of the law, the Interior Ministry confirmed.

Ms Patel is expected to present the change to parliament next week.

Hamas — full name the 'Islamic Resistance Movement' — has political and military wings.

Founded in 1987, it opposes the existence of Israel and peace talks, instead advocating "armed resistance" against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Hamas is on the US list of designated foreign terrorist organisations. The European Union also deems it a terrorist movement.

Based in Gaza, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, defeating nationalist rival Fatah. It seized military control of Gaza the following year.

Hamas and Israel clashed most recently in a deadly 11-day conflict in May.

Until now Britain had banned only its military arm — the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

Hamas political official Sami Abu Zuhri said Britain's move showed "absolute bias toward the Israeli occupation and is a submission to Israeli blackmail and dictations".

In a separate statement, Hamas said: "Resisting occupation by all available means, including armed resistance, is a right granted to people under occupation as stated by the international law."

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett welcomed the decision, saying in a Twitter post: "Hamas is a terrorist organization, simply put. The 'political arm' enables its military activity."

Ms Patel was forced to resign as Britain's international development secretary in 2017 after she failed to disclose meetings with senior Israeli officials during a private holiday to the country, including then-opposition leader Yair Lapid.

Mr Lapid, now Israel's Foreign Minister, hailed the decision on Hamas as "part of strengthening ties with Britain".


'This is treating trained officers like children': London Police's ABC handcuff guide

Crime and victim campaigners have savaged the Met Police's new 44-question handcuff policy, calling it 'embarrassing' and treating trained police officers like children'.

The Centre for Crime Prevention said crooks would not give PCc the luxury of the time to mull over the near-50 considerations in the guidance.

And it suggested the document would raise yet more of its own questions - but this time about the leadership of under-fire Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick.

David Spencer, research director at the centre, told MailOnline: 'Plenty of people are of the view that police priorities tend to be the wellbeing of criminals rather than the law abiding public and this will go some way to reinforce that perception.

'It is also quite simply treating trained police officers like children and is hugely patronising to the vast majority of police officers who are arresting potentially dangerous suspects every single day.

'Most arrests will not give police the luxury of considering 44 questions before apprehending a suspect. They are working on instinct and applying their training and this is where such questions should be, and are, drummed into them.

'It is difficult to imagine how Cressida Dick’s time as Commissioner could get much more embarrassing for the Met, but this policy is certainly doing its best.

'There are already serious question marks about whether Cressida Dick is the right person to be leading the Met and proclamations like this are only going to undermine her authority still further.'

The policy on handcuffing tells officers to ask themselves 44 questions before arresting a suspect and details the procedure in a child-style ABC guide.

Its mammoth decision process is laid out in full in the new 25-page document published by Scotland Yard.

It puts into official policy nearly 50 questions officers should consider when they are using the police-issue restraints.

The questions include, 'What could go wrong (and what could go well)?', 'What is happening?', and, 'What do I not know?'. Other advice to mull over also includes, 'Do I need to take action immediately?' and 'What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?'

Most are from the College of Policing's National Decision Model but are now enshrined in the official equipment policy.

It is not clear what the Met's previous policy on the police restraint tactic had been. But the new rules have been drawn up after complaints from the black community they had been disproportionately targeted in stop and search.

The 44 questions police should consider in Met handcuff policy:

1. Is what I am considering consistent with the Code of Ethics?

2. What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?

3. What does the police service expect of me in this situation?

4. Is this action or decision likely to reflect positively on my professionalism and policing generally?

5. Could I explain my action or decision in public?

6. What is happening?

7. What do I know so far?

8. What do I not know?

9. What further information (or intelligence) do I want/need at this moment?

10. Do I need to take action immediately?

11. Do I need to seek more information?

12. What could go wrong (and what could go well)?

13. What is causing the situation?

14. How probable is the risk of harm?

15. How serious would it be?

16. Is that level of risk acceptable?

17. Is this a situation for the police alone to deal with?

18. Am I the appropriate person to deal with this?

19. What am I trying to achieve?

20. Will my action resolve the situation?

21. What police powers might be required?

22. Is there any national guidance covering this type of situation?

23. Do any local organisational policies or guidelines apply?

24. What legislation might apply?

25. Is there any research evidence?

26. If decision makers have to account for their decisions, will they be able to say they were proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?

27. Reasonable in the circumstances facing them at the time?

28. Does anyone else need to know what you have decided?

29. What happened as a result of your decision?

30. Was it what you wanted or expected to happen?

31. How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?

32. What information or intelligence was available?

33. What factors (potential benefits and harms) were assessed?

34. What threat and risk assessment methods were used (if any)?

35. Was a working strategy developed and was it appropriate?

36. Were there any powers, policies and legislation that should have been considered?

37. If policy was not followed, was this reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances?

38. How were feasible options identified and assessed?

39. Were decisions proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?

40. Were decisions reasonable in the circumstances facing the decision maker?

41. Were decisions communicated effectively?

42. Were decisions and the rationale for them recorded as appropriate?

43. Were decisions monitored and reassessed where necessary?

44. What lessons can be learnt from the outcomes and how the decisions were made?

Also featured is an alphabet-themed guide to handcuffing that warns to, 'Always ask the suspect if the cuffs are too tight'.

It includes the advice to 'always double-lock the handcuffs'.

The Met publicised the new policy yesterday morning, which came after a review by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist.

Industry insiders and former police officers have slammed the alphabet-style guide, with former Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley warning it was indicative of the 'weakness of senior police leadership'.

He told GB News: 'Frankly, it's an example of the ineptitude, the pusillanimous, the weakness of decision-making that we now see with senior police leadership.

'Police officers, when they decide to use force or apply handcuffs, need to run through in their mind a lot of different things which comes down to: "Is this the right thing to be doing, and can I defend my options?"

'What we've now see happen is something that's going to affect three groups of people.

'First, it is going to put off the cops using force or arresting people. There's nothing more difficult than trying to get some officers to deal with confrontation.

'It's very easy to back down. The hard thing is to motivate a police officer to be nosy.

'The second thing is, the public are going to think: "What on earth is going on here?"

'The third point really is that those who are "baddies", it's going to give them an opportunity for an outer.'

Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said of the force's new policy: 'My number one priority remains tackling violent crime and keeping people safe from street crime – which is blighting the lives of too many young people.

'Alongside that, I have set out to increase the trust and confidence of communities in their police service.

'We know that not all communities have the same level of trust in us – I am determined to change that.

'The handcuffing review could not have taken place effectively without the input and contribution of many front line police officers and members of the public. I thank them all for their time, effort and valuable honesty.'

The policy follows a review commissioned by the Met Commissioner Cressida Dick in 2019 into the use of handcuffs before an arrest has taken place.

It came after complaints from black communities they were being disproportionately targeted.

The Met said the review would make sure the tactic, for which there is a sound legal basis in some circumstances, was justified and recorded on each occasion.

It fed in consultation responses from young black men aged between 16 to 25 years-old.

A Met spokeswoman said: 'The launch of the policy, which covers all aspects of the use of handcuffs, is the final recommendation from the 2020 review to be implemented.

'Officers are already receiving additional legal training, more public and personal safety training, with further emphasis on de-escalation; and more community input to understand the respective experiences of the public and police officers during encounters on the streets of London.'

Last October a highly criticial review of the Met's use of stop and search powers has revealed officers stopped two black men after they were seen 'fist bumping,'.

The review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct revealed the officers thought the pair had just completed a drug deal, in one of a number of issues raised by the watchdog.

It found handcuffs were used in nearly all instances where other tactics could have de-escalated an encounter, while officers also failed to use bodycam video from the outset of their interaction with some members of the public.

The IOPC said their review 'mirrors concerns,' already raised by communities in the Capital.

Regional director Sal Naseem said: 'We saw a lack of understanding from officers about why their actions were perceived to be discriminatory.'


Now a ban on boiling live lobsters is a step closer as ministers recognise crustaceans as sentient beings

A ban on boiling lobsters alive came closer yesterday after the Government recognised crabs, octopus and lobsters as sentient beings. An amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill currently going through Parliament was tabled which makes it illegal to cause needless harm and suffering to invertebrate animals.

It came after a report for ministers by the London School of Economics confirmed there is strong scientific evidence of sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crab and lobster, and cephalopod molluscs, octopus and squid.

It recommended that they should be included in animal protection legislation.

There had previously been much debate over whether lobsters and crabs have feelings similar to vertebrates – animals that have a backbone – as they have different nervous systems.

The amendment published on the Government’s website read: ‘This amendment adds cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.’

This would make it an offence for any person who is responsible for a kept animal – including crabs and lobsters – to cause it unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the animal’s welfare needs.

Though the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insists this will have no impact on restaurant kitchens, campaigners could use the new law to argue in court for a ban on boiling the animals alive in eateries as they say there are less painful ways to kill them.

It is currently illegal to do this in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.

Stunning lobsters with an electric gun or by chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling is a more humane method, according to animal welfare charities.

But restaurateurs are unlikely to be impressed by the new law, which may make them subject to checks by Defra and, if a ban does come into effect, could criminalise those who kill the lobsters in a traditional way.

The move has been pushed for by animal welfare minister Lord Goldsmith and the Prime Minister’s wife Carrie Johnson – who are patrons of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation (CAWF).

Lord Goldsmith said: ‘The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill provides a crucial assurance that animal wellbeing is rightly considered when developing new laws.

‘The science is now clear that crustaceans and molluscs can feel pain and therefore it is only right they are covered by this vital piece of legislation.’