Monday, January 31, 2022

Democrats Rushed to ‘Reimagine’ Policing in Washington State. Now It’s Unsafe

SEATTLE—Democrats in Washington state rode the wave of anti-police sentiment after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Their goal was to “reimagine policing,” and it’s exactly what they did.

Consequently, Washington experienced a surge of violent crime. Now Republicans, and even some Democrats, are rushing to fix as much as possible.

With total control of the state Legislature, Democrats used the 2021 legislative session to rush through sweeping “reforms” that dramatically changed policing in the state. These passed bills clamped down on police use of force and detainment, banned departments from deploying large-caliber weapons, and even prohibited most high-speed chases.

Prior to the changes, police officers could use reasonable suspicion as a reason to detain a suspect. But thanks to a bill designated as HB 1310, an officer may use force only when making an arrest.

To make an arrest, though, an officer must have probable cause—a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion. If an officer detains someone or uses force under the reasonable-suspicion standard, thanks to the passage of SB 5051, he or she may lose police certification.

In the real world, this means if an officer sees someone acting suspiciously around an abandoned building in the middle of the night, in a neighborhood that is experiencing a rash of arson, the officer cannot detain that person.

The officer merely may ask the suspect to submit voluntarily to questioning. If the person suddenly flees, the officer may not pursue, because he didn’t witness a crime.

This issue has had the biggest impact on our communities that are overwhelmed by homelessness, where it’s common to see someone experiencing a public episode related to mental health or drugs.

Democrat politicians long have complained that armed police officers should not respond to calls involving citizens in crisis. They’re getting that wish now, and living with the consequences.
‘We Cannot Use Force’

Since law enforcement officers in Washington state are restricted to using force only when making an arrest, unless a crime is committed, officers are not allowed to touch the person in crisis, even if it’s to get him into a patrol car for transport to a mental health evaluation.

Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney, in a recent interview on my Seattle-based talk radio show, said these occurrences are frequent and put other residents at risk.

Fortney recalled dispatching deputies and medics to a family dispute involving an adult in the middle of a mental health crisis. These first responders found the man lying down in the back of a pickup truck.

“We’re talking to him, you know, we’re keeping distance,” Fortney recalled. “We and the medic determined that he needs help … but this is the crux of the issue: Unless that person in crisis is willing to walk on his own accord into the back of the aid unit and go to the hospital and get the help, we cannot use force because of this new legislation.”

The man in this example ended up running away, the sheriff said, and there was nothing authorities could do since he had not committed a crime. But he would end up doing just that.

“We watched him run away,” Fortney said. “He jumps fences. He enters someone else’s home unlawfully after he shed his clothing. And that homeowner had to hold that person in crisis at knifepoint until we were redispatched and had to go deal with, now, the new issue that came up.”

It’s not the only circumstance where law enforcement officers have to stand by helplessly. They’re now put in positions where they are forced to watch suspects flee in vehicles, since legislation known as HB 1054 bans nearly all vehicle pursuits.

Limiting Pursuit

The law bars police from pursuing a suspect unless there’s probable cause that he committed a violent offense or sex crime, or a reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired.

But that’s not all.

Prior to the pursuit, the law says an officer must consider whether a suspect poses “an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend,” and a supervisor must give permission for the officer to pursue.

Imagine having to satisfy this law within seconds, at risk of losing police certification if you get it wrong.

It’s why the Chelan County Sheriff’s Office and police in neighboring Douglas County could not pursue a man who was driving a stolen bus. Law enforcement didn’t have probable cause that the man committed a violent crime.

The following evening, police made an arrest. Unfortunately, it came after the suspect left the bus and stole a front-end loader. Police said he crashed the vehicle into the home of his estranged wife.

The incident would have ended differently if cops weren’t stymied by Democrat lawmakers whose understanding of policing extends only to trusting activists who claim officers roam the streets looking to harass or hunt so-called BIPOC (black, Indigenous, and people of color).

Law enforcement agencies and the experts that run them were mostly cut off from helping draft the state legislation. That approach recently cost the life of a police dog.

Officers from the Seattle Police Department responded to a panicked call about a man, armed with a machete, who was trying to break into a home. When they arrived, the man was running away, wearing nothing but a bath towel.

Wielding a knife as well as the machete, the man refused to comply with orders to stop as he ran toward oncoming traffic.
The Death of Jedi

Officers called a K-9 unit to assist. A police dog named Jedi was unleashed not long after the man briefly advanced toward a cop and then turned back to the oncoming traffic with no apparent interest in stopping.

The man hacked Jedi multiple times with the machete, then stabbed the dog with the knife. The brutal violence was caught on police body cameras.

Jedi died of his wounds. The police dog’s handler was injured during the melee. Other cops on the scene shot and killed the man.

The dog’s death was needless; the K-9 unit itself was unnecessary.

HB 1054 banned police use of large-caliber firearms and ammunition under the ridiculous notion that police departments were becoming militarized. The legislation didn’t include a carve-out for nonlethal firearms such as 44 mm sponge-tipped rounds. Lawmakers unfamiliar with weapons or policing thought that a large caliber coincides with lethality.

“I say this with 100% certainty, having years of experience in patrol and SWAT, and having worked beside K-9 more times than I can count,” a Seattle police officer told me. “Had responding officers had 40 mm launchers to deploy on that suspect, Jedi would almost certainly be alive today. The suspect might also be alive today, receiving treatment.”

Other officers reached out to convey that same message.

After Democrats passed their legislation last year, law enforcement officials immediately raised red flags—the same ones that had been ignored by the Democrats who pushed through the legislation.

Lawmakers knew they erred and responded with ludicrous advice from the two state representatives who spearheaded the “reform” efforts.

Scrambling to Make Fixes

State Rep. Jesse Johnson, D-Federal Way, argued that his bills were being “misinterpreted.” Although news outlets that are antagonistic to police also made this claim, Johnson acknowledged that his legislation had “unintended consequences.”

Meanwhile, state Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, advised police to ignore the ban on large-caliber weapons because “no one caught” that mistake. Goodman promised that “there are not going to be any sanctions” imposed on officers who use nonlethal weapons.

Good luck finding a cop who will trust that legally untenable position. Judges don’t look to interviews given by a lawmaker if pressed on a case.

Officers in law enforcement agencies that have decided to break the law and keep nonlethal tools are choosing not to use them. Take former King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht, for one.

“In my mind, while I was sheriff, the decision that [the law] disqualified the carrying of less-lethal weapons for the Sheriff’s Office … I wasn’t going to take that chance for the members of my organization at that time,” Johanknecht, whose term ended in December, told me.

Now Democrats are hastily trying to fix some of their hastily passed legislation. It’s quite ironic.

They’re attempting to clarify when officers may use force so that they would not be barred from intervening in a crisis fueled by a mental health issue or addiction. They’re also changing the weapons ban so that it applies only to rifles.

But one fix is providing controversial.

Introduced by Goodman, the Democrat from Kirkland, HB 1726 would allow law enforcement officers to revert to the reasonable-suspicion standard when using force in a criminal investigation. It would allow officers to use force “to effect a temporary investigatory detention when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a violent offense, a sex offense, an assault, or domestic violence.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington opposes Goodman’s bill because it would expand the use of force


1,800 Sign Letter Urging Fidelity Charitable Not to Bow to Leftists’ Demands

More than 1,800 financial advisers, investment professionals, recipients of charitable donations, and others signed a letter sent last week urging Fidelity Charitable to protect donor privacy and philanthropic freedom, following a petition from left-wing groups targeting certain groups receiving donations.

The letter was in response to a petition from Unmasking Fidelity, a coalition of far-left advocacy groups. The activists are demanding that Fidelity Charitable disclose contributions over the past five years to a select group of 10 mainly conservative organizations, among them the Alliance Defending Freedom, Turning Point USA, and the Family Research Council.

“We are writing to you about our continuing concern that Fidelity Charitable’s Donor-Advised Funds (FC DAFs) contribute to tax-exempt non-profits that promote anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Black or anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies that enable white supremacist and fascist violence,” the Unmasking Fidelity petition reads.

Fidelity Charitable, an arm of Fidelity Investments, is a 501(c)(3) organization that enables investors to donate to a wide range of tax-exempt organizations. It distributed $9.1 billion to charities in 2020, making it the nation’s top grant-maker, according to its website.

Fidelity Charitable describes itself as “cause-neutral” and says it “does not limit grant-making to specific charitable activities or fields of interest, to specific geographical or demographic criteria, or to specific organizations based on political, religious, or philosophical grounds.”

The response letter to Unmasking Fidelity was published by the Philadelphia Statement, a group that claims to combat cancel culture and promote free speech. Among the signatories was Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“Americans should be able to donate to charities and nonprofit organizations without the fear of being harassed by left-wing political activists,” Roberts wrote on Twitter.

“We write in response to Unmasking Fidelity’s list of demands that would jeopardize donor privacy and charitable choice,” the letter stated. “As a leader in philanthropy, Fidelity Charitable has an outsized opportunity (and responsibility) to resist demands to inject polarization, division, and enmity into charitable giving.”

The letter cited the recent Supreme Court case Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the court’s 6-3 majority in June held that California’s donor-disclosure regulations violated First Amendment rights.

“Requiring that nonprofits disclose their donors not only exposes existing donors to the threat of doxing and harassment, but also discourages charitable giving and participation in the marketplace of ideas,” the Philadelphia Statement letter said. “Public advocacy is for everyone, not just those able to weather abuse. And donors have good reason to fear abuse. In our present age of cancel culture and social media mobs, too many are quick to ostracize, lambast, and threaten those with whom they disagree.”

Stephen Austin, a spokesman for Fidelity Investments, told The Daily Signal that Fidelity Charitable allows its more than quarter-of-a-million donors to bring their own values and perspectives to their giving.

“We conduct a robust review of each grant recommended by our donors, to ensure the organization is in good standing with the IRS and the funds are used for charitable purposes,” Austin said. “The IRS, not Fidelity Charitable, has oversight over an organization’s tax-exempt status.”


Liz Cheney Trounced: RINO Crushed in Latest WY Poll, Trump-Backed Challenger Get 10 Times More Votes

GOP Rep. Liz Cheney may be the mainstream media’s favorite Republican, particularly given her work on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Jan. 6 committee. In her native Wyoming, however, she’s a bit less popular.

According to the Casper Star-Tribune, a straw poll among state GOP activists taken Saturday by the Wyoming Republican State Central Committee saw Cheney lose big, with 59 votes for her top challenger in this year’s GOP primary, Harriet Hageman, compared to only six votes for the incumbent representative.

The movement to unseat the GOP’s biggest RINO began almost as soon as Cheney announced she would be voting to impeach then-President Donald Trump in January 2021 — and it’s something we’ve stayed on top of here at The Western Journal. We’ll keep bringing you updates to one of the most critical primary races in the country. You can help us bring America the truth by subscribing.

The straw poll was taken among 71 of the 74 individuals who make up the state central committee — three representatives from each Wyoming county and members of the state party. That means it can, in certain cases, be deceiving. In a 2020 straw poll, for instance, now-Sen. Cynthia Lumis lost to the GOP chairman of Sheridan County — then went on to beat him by a nearly 50-point margin in the actual primary, the Star-Tribune reported.

“I think it’s a good sign. It’s not an endorsement, but these are the county activists,” Hageman, a lawyer who has been endorsed by Trump, said after the straw poll, according to the Star-Tribune. “There will be lots of polls over the next eight months [before the August primary], and they will all show different things

The state party can’t officially endorse anyone, although Natrona County Committeeman Joe Mcginley told the Star-Tribune the vote “smells like an endorsement to me.”

“Whether that is the true intention of the state … or not, that’s what it appears to be.”

The state GOP had already censured Cheney and stripped her of party recognition, so the loss is no surprise. The nearly 10-to-1 margin might be, however.

Granted, Cheney and the state GOP have been at loggerheads of late. According to the Star-Tribune, Cheney used the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to note that there “are people in the state party apparatus of my home state who are quite radical. And some of those same people include people who were here on Jan. 6th, include a party chair who has toyed with the idea of secession.”

“If Ms. Cheney wants to continue to pick a fight with the majority of Wyoming Republicans and accuse the vast majority of being deplorables and radicals, then of course she can continue that foolish ploy,” the Wyoming GOP said in a statement in response, according to The Washington Times.

“She can also continue to engage in the politics of personal destruction with other Republicans – which is her specialty and only real qualification to sit on the farcical January 6th Commission — but that is unlikely to improve her position in the polls.”

Moreover, when it comes to the 196,179 registered Republicans who’ll be voting on Cheney’s fate this coming August, they don’t seem too thrilled with her, either.

Polling in the race has been scant thus far, but it doesn’t look good for Cheney. According to the Washington Examiner, Hageman was up by 20 points in a December poll, 38 percent to 18 percent. While that poll had a large number of undecideds, a poll taken in July found only 23 percent of potential GOP primary voters said they would vote for Cheney against 77 percent who wouldn’t, the Examiner reported.

And then there’s this number: 70.4. That’s Donald Trump’s percentage of the vote in Wyoming in the 2020 election, vs. Joe Biden’s 26.7 percent. Given that Wyoming only has one House seat and Trump enjoyed widespread support in the state — particularly among Republicans — this doesn’t augur well for Cheney’s chances in August.

Donald Trump Jr. was more than happy to call attention to the results of the straw poll and revel in them, it’s worth noting. The former president’s son tweeted Saturday that “Republican voters in Wyoming are sick and tired of being represented by a Pelosi puppet like Liz Cheney.


One More Time: It’s Not ‘Gun Violence’ It’s Gang Violence

Every time you hear a politician or a media personality mention “gun violence,” you should mentally translate that phrase to “gang violence.” Not only that, but ask yourself if that politician or media outlet has an agenda by mislabeling gang violence as something entirely different.

Obviously politicians who have enabled the “criminal justice reforms” that have directly resulted in the out-of-control increases in violent crime across America don’t want to talk about criminals and gangs. In fact, California’s Gov. Newsom even went so far as to actuall apologize for using the word “gang” when describing the organized groups of criminals who commit crimes (otherwise known as ‘gangs’).

Rather than correctly identify those who commit the majority of violent crimes in this country, countless failed and inept politicians like the Land of Lincoln’s Governor J.B. Pritzker and Murder City, USA’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot instead blame law-abiding gun owners.

They continue to promote more gun control laws and more government spending to redirect peoples’ attention away from the failures of their feckless policies and misplaced spending priorities.

As for the media, there’s a reason the great majority of Americans don’t trust them any more. Nine percent of Americans now have “a great deal” of trust in what they hear in the media. To put that into perspective, roughly four percent of the population think lizard people “control our societies by gaining political power.”

Too many of today’s media members are nothing more than Democrat party operatives with bylines who dutifully spout leftist talking points. They willfully ignore stories that are bad for their political allies and their agenda. Or they cover them…with a pillow. Until they stop moving.

At the same time, they’re quick to castigate law-abiding gun owners for the actions of actual criminals, terrorists, and lunatics who commit crimes with firearms.

The next time you see some politician or candidate talking about the problem of so-called “gun violence,” call them out on it. Pols usually squirm if you make them address the real issue that drives the majority violent crime in cities: gangs.

In centers of corruption like Chicago, they may aggressively deflect the discussion away from gangs because a lot of gangs in places like Chi-town have some very cozy relationships with local elected officials to provide votes in exchange for the politicians avoiding discussions about gang-related crimes.

As for the media, do the math. If they’re trumpeting talking points like “gun violence,” they’re probably gaslighting you about other topics too. Look deeper to see what else they’re lying to you about.




Sunday, January 30, 2022

To kill a classic: school ditches Harper Lee

The United States is grappling with the legacy of one its greatest books over fears its handling of race may make teachers and pupils uncomfortable.

School authorities have pulled To Kill a Mockingbird from a required reading list for children aged 14 to 15 because it was a “difficult book” that raised “thorny subjects”. Harper Lee’s classic 1960 novel about a white lawyer defending a black man wrongly accused of rape in Alabama in the 1930s has long been a staple in schools, as well as the subject of deep controversy. It frequently appears on lists for both America’s greatest novels and its most banned.

A school board in Mukilteo, near Seattle, removed the book from its ninth grade curriculum, claiming it “reflects a time when racism was tolerated”.

The book’s use of a racial slur was also cited as a reason to remove it, while Atticus Finch, the lead character depicted as a hero in the 1962 film starring Gregory Peck, has been accused of not taking a harsh enough stance against racists.

John Gahagan, a school board member, said he read the novel last week for the first time in 50 years. “It’s a difficult book and a lot of thorny subjects are raised,” he told The Seattle Times.

“We felt that some teachers may not feel comfortable guiding their students through it.”

He said the novel “reflects a time when racism was tolerated”, adding: “Atticus is in everyone’s memory the great hero, but in fact he was kind of tolerant of racism around him. He described one of the members of a lynch mob as a good man.”

Gahagan, who emphasised To Kill a Mockingbird was not being banned and teachers were free to choose to teach it, also objected to Lee’s use of the n-word. “It never has a discussion about why that word is bad, why it is hurtful or why it should not be used,” Gahagan said. “You don’t really get the perspective of the pain that might cause people of colour.”

Despite the controversy surrounding To Kill a Mockingbird, it remains immensely respected and loved. Last month it won a New York Times poll of the greatest books of the past 125 years, with readers saying it had changed their lives and transformed how they viewed race.

Lee, who was white, died in 2016 at the age of 89. Her estate has been contacted for comment.


America's monetary authorities are doing nothing to stop the destruction of America's savings

Australia's top financial commentator, TERRY MCCRANN notes the inaction on inflation by the Fed

The only actual policy decision the Fed made at its first meeting back for the year was to print yet another $US30bn of money through February.

So for all the talk of the Fed ‘turning hawkish’ in the face of high single-digit US inflation that it could no longer ‘not see’, it’s actually continuing in near-hyper pump-priming mode for at least another month.

It’s not only still printing money, it’s kept its official interest rate at zero (technically, 0-0.25 per cent), saying only that it expects it will “soon” be appropriate to raise it.

In his press conference, Fed chairman Jerome Powell made it explicit that “soon” was the next meeting.

“I would say that the committee is of a mind to raise the Federal Funds rate at the March meeting,” Powell said.

Let me point out that is all of a month-and-a-half away. Unlike our Reserve Bank which meets monthly – next Tuesday, and then again on March 3 - the Fed won’t meet again and (possibly/probably) hike until March 16.

Gee, talk about hastening slowly; the Fed would not only be outdistanced but twice-lapped by a sluggish clapped-out snail.

The Fed is quite simply a disgrace.

It’s hard to know which is the more pathetic – that pitiable spineless individual who’s its purported ‘leader’ or the nine vegetables sitting around the board table nodding compliantly like funfair dummies.

Talk about so unknowingly announcing your own ineptitude, I doubt that I’ve seen a more revealing admission than the key sentence in the Fed statement.

“With inflation well above 2 percent and a strong labor market, the Committee expects it will soon be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate.”

Inflation well above 2 per cent, and yet it would only be “appropriate” to raise, from zero let me remind you, “soon”? Not now, immediately; far less two, or indeed six months ago?

Inflation in the US has actually been over 5 per cent – the Fed is supposed to keep it no higher than 2 per cent - since the middle of last year and is now at 7 percent.

So this was like noting that Hitler had marched into Poland – or Putin into Ukraine – and that so “soon” it might be “appropriate” to start spending a few more dollars on defence.

The Fed has spent that last year variously ‘not seeing’ inflation in the US or dismissing it as ‘transitory’.

Now at least it “sees” the inflation, but is desperately trying to go softly-softly in fear of Wall St throwing a tantrum – when it should be precisely targeting a huge drop in the share market and significant rises in interest rates across the yield curve.

This is because asset values – the most obvious ones of shares and property, but also bonds, both government and corporate – are grotesquely over-inflated and all down to those zero rates and trillions of dollars of Fed-printed money.

I’ve loosely suggested the Dow needs to go back below 20,000 as an indicator of what’s needed to get back to economic and financial sanity, with our index going back (at least) below 5000.

That’s why I’m not particularly impressed by the claims of Wall St “adjusting” to Powell’s – fake and spinelessly pathetic – supposed “hawkishness”.

The Dow has come back all of 9 per cent from its early-January ludicrous record high, but it’s still around 34,000; although tech stocks have taken a (very slightly) bigger hit, with the Nasdaq off 15 per cent.

The Fed should have ‘surprised’ the greediest people on the planet by – so very belatedly - hiking 0.5 per cent. It really should have been 1 per cent but I would have taken 0.5 per cent.


Pennsylvania Court Rules Mail-in Ballots Unconstitutional

The Commonwealth Court ruled that Act 77, which allowed residents no-excuse absentee vote by mail in Pennsylvania, violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution.

Commonwealth Court President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote, “If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation allowing no-excuse mail-in voting can be ‘placed upon our statute books.'”

The ruling states, “Act 77, inter alia, created the opportunity for all Pennsylvania electors to vote by mail without having to demonstrate a valid reason for absence from their polling place on Election Day, i.e., a reason provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

“The central question presented in this matter is whether Act 77 conforms to Article VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which article governs elections,” the ruling continues. “In resolving this question, we recognize that ‘acts passed by the General Assembly are strongly presumed to be constitutional’ and that we will not declare a statute unconstitutional ‘unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. If there is any doubt that a challenger has failed to reach this high burden, then that doubt must be resolved in favor of finding the statute constitutional.’”

The Pennsylvania Department of State said in a statement to Forbes it “disagrees with today’s ruling and is working to file an immediate appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”

Pennsylvania’s Act 77 that greenlit no-excuse, mass mail-in voting in 2019 was actually a compromise forged between legislative Republicans and Democratic Governor Tom Wolf. Republicans voted for it 27-0 in the Senate, and 105-2 in the House. Democrats did not support it in the Senate and split their votes against it in the lower chamber.

Mass mail-in ballots should absolutely be banned across the country. It leaves so many doors open for doubt and cheating, just as we saw in the 2020 election chaos.


Liberties Are Only Kept Safe by the Limitation of Government Power

An old fight continues

I was recently struck by the explosion of the federal government’s size and reach, as well as its apparent ambition to super-size itself even more, in an unusual way.

I had been looking up something in one of my old public finance textbooks, when I came across a section on the size and growth of government. What struck me was that the authors used exclamation points (an almost extinct species in such writing) over two decades ago to describe government’s expansion, particularly at the federal level. But the rate at which government has recently metastasized leaves those exclamation points in the dust. We would also have to use all caps today (as in “YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE WON”). From said book: total expenditures by all levels of government in 1990 were substantially smaller than just one of the recent stimulus bills.

That explosion of the federal government’s grasp, and the extent to which its attempted reach exceeds its grasp, has made limits on federal power once again among the most central political issues. Unfortunately, ignorance of our Founding severely impoverishes that discussion.

A good example comes from Richard Henry Lee, born January 20, 1732. Lee put forth the motion calling for the colonies’ independence. He was a leader in the Continental Congresses. He was elected Senator from Virginia, even though he opposed the Constitution’s ratification for lacking “a better bill of rights.”

But particularly important to America’s creation were Lee’s essays under the pseudonym, The Federal Farmer. His Letters from the Federal Farmer, which were both widely published in newspapers and sold thousands of copies as a pamphlet, provided impetus to the Bill of Rights, and his words deserve remembering:

We must have our rights maintained

A free and enlightened people...will not resign all their rights to those who govern...they will fix limits to their legislators and rulers...[who] will know they cannot be passed.

[Hope] cannot justify the impropriety of giving powers, the exercise of which prudent men will not attempt, and imprudent men will...exercise only in a manner destructive of free government.

National laws ought to yield to inalienable or fundamental rights—and ...should extend only to a few national objects.

It must never be forgotten...that the liberties of the people are not so safe under the gracious manner of government as by the limitation of power.

Our rights must be equal

I can consent to no government, not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men.

We ought not...commit the many to the mercy, prudence, and moderation of the few.

In free governments, the people...follow their own private pursuits, and enjoy the fruits of their labor with very small deductions for the public use.

The people have a right to hold and enjoy their property according to known standing laws, and which cannot be taken from them without their consent.

Every government is a threat to our rights

We cannot form a general government in which all power can be safely lodged.

“Should the general government...[employ] a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws...props for its own support.

Vast powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a government ...would be...abused by imprudent and designing men.

Men who govern will...construe laws and constitutions most favorably for increasing their own powers.

Our countrymen are entitled... to a government of laws and not of men... if the vague and unguarded, then we depend wholly on the prudence, wisdom and moderation of those who manage the affairs of government...uncertain and precarious.

Liberty, in its genuine sense, is security to enjoy the effects of our honest industry and labors, in a free and mild government.

How can we protect ourselves from government abuse?

All wise and prudent people...have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved...what rights are established as fundamental, and must not be infringed upon.

The powers delegated to the government must be precisely defined... that, by no reasonable construction, they can be made to invade the rights and prerogatives intended to be left in the people.

We must consider this constitution, when adopted, as the supreme act of the people...we and our posterity must strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of it, and in no instance depart from them.

Why...unnecessarily leave a door open to improper regulations?

The first maxim of a man who loves liberty should be never to grant to rulers an atom of power that is not most clearly and indispensably necessary for the safety and well-being of society.

Our true object render force as little necessary as possible.

Historian Forrest McDonald described Richard Henry Lee as committed to the belief that “men are born with certain rights, whether they are honored in a particular society or not,” and the result was that he was “imbued with an abiding love of liberty and a concomitant wholesome distrust of government.” And he made that plain to anyone who was willing to hear, as when he said “To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.”

His generation had learned of the need to keep government within narrow limits, as there are very few areas in which it can advance our general welfare, as opposed to some Americans’ welfare at other Americans’ expense. At a time when those limits have been eroded to the point that people can wonder if there are any surviving limits in many areas, we could benefit by relearning the wisdom Lee helped pass on nearly three centuries ago.


Conservative Activist Brandon Straka Sentenced to Home Detention and $5,000 Fine

A conservative activist has been sentenced to three months of home detention and a $5,000 fine.

Brandon Straka, 45, of Nebraska, was sentenced on Monday for his participation in the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol building.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich accused Straka of abusing his online platform to encourage people to attack on Jan. 6 and defend the events that unfolded on that day.

“Election challenges are fought in the courts, not by storming the Capitol,” Friedrich said, calling Straka’s use of social media “deeply disturbing.”

Straka, a Democrat-turned-Republican, pleaded guilty in October to a disorderly conduct charge, a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment.

Straka founded the “WalkAway” movement, which encourages disenchanted Democrats and liberals to move right. The former hair stylist in 2018 posted a video titled “Why I left the Democrat Party,” which went viral.

He told the judge he and his social media followers don’t condone violence. Straka said his relationship with his fans and followers isn’t just about politics, “it’s about love.”

“It’s not who they are, and it’s not who I am, which is why they love our movement,” he said.

Straka didn’t enter the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and wasn’t accused of doing so. According to court documents, he was accused of encouraging protesters to take a police officer’s shield.

Straka in a statement said he joined in chants after he “observed others yelling to take a U.S. Capitol Police Officer’s shield,” and told the judge he was “deeply sorry and ashamed,” the Huffington Post reported.

“Even if he didn’t personally engage in violence or property destruction during the riot, Straka encouraged and celebrated the violence of that day,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Brittany Reed wrote in a court filing.

WUSA-9 reported that the judge was skeptical about the defendant’s statements.

“He wants me to believe he was there completely oblivious to what was going on around him, that he was just a peaceful protester, and it’s very hard to believe that based on his conduct and his statements,” Friedrich was quoted as saying by the news outlet.

Straka’s attorney, Bilal Essayli, accused prosecutors of attacking Straka’s First Amendment rights and “attempting to make a public example of a prominent Trump-supporting influencer.”

However, Friedrich said Straka wasn’t being punished for his political views or personal beliefs.

“None of the criminal conduct to which Mr. Straka has admitted is covered by the First Amendment,” the judge said.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Straka and Essayli for comment.




Friday, January 28, 2022

America undergoing a dangerous experiment

Thanks to the Biden Administration’s unofficial open-borders policy, some two million unauthorised migrants crossed into the United States last year, intent on heading north to ‘sanctuary cities’. No wonder. Apart from providing generous welfare, local officials refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.

The sanctuary city phenomenon is just the latest manifestation of a totalitarian movement intent on destroying from within, the basis of American society. It doesn’t matter that conferring the rights of citizenship on those who are non-citizens violates the American Constitution. Some states even permit undocumented migrants to obtain driver’s licences, and New York City has just given 800,000 non-citizens a vote in local elections. Who needs citizenship?

Not all Americans approve. Many are abandoning their homes in sanctuary states to move to places like Florida, Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Over the last decade, the tri-state area of New York lost over a million people, while Californians watched 1.625 million comrades take their skills, capital, taxes and businesses with them as they moved to places where governments respect the federal Constitution and reflect their traditional values and beliefs. The headquarters of tech giants Oracle and Hewlett-Packard, whose roots can be traced back to the founding of Silicon Valley, are among departures.

But, in common with its woke counterparts, California’s problems are of its own making. They include unfulfillable public pension promises and a vast social safety net, beyond the capacity of its remaining workers and businesses to fund. This is unsustainable.

Indeed, what we are seeing is the emergence of two Americas, based upon two conflicting philosophies. One champions authoritarian control, the other economic growth and freedom.

In his book, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail, founder of the world’s biggest hedge fund, Ray Dalio, warns this growing ideological divide raises a ‘dangerously high risk’ of a US civil war within the next decade. He outlines the six stages of the internal order/disorder cycle, which end in civil war. He argues the US is currently at stage five — bad financial conditions and intense emotional conflict.

Dalio observes how voters move to electorates which match their beliefs, crowding out those who don’t, and how they watch different television stations and believe different facts. The number of cross-party friendships is at an all-time low. People today are inclined to excuse bad behaviour when it comes from their side and exaggerate it when it comes from the other.

It is clear the current state of America is the result of decades of self-loathing indoctrination and policies which have deliberately confused welfare dependence with compassion. Poorer communities have become perpetual incubators of poverty and violence. Almost 70 per cent of black children are born to single mothers and, as the Brookings Institution confirms, ‘the policy implications for out-of-wedlock births are staggering’. Single mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor and to instill in the minds of their children a sense of victimhood and learned helplessness. This, in turn restricts social mobility and entrenches inequality. America’s ten ‘most dangerous cities’ bear witness to this trend.

The immediate response is to decriminalise the law and to demonise and defund the police. This has proven to be a disaster and hits poorer communities the hardest.

It is now obvious that America is in the final stages of a social experiment gone horribly wrong. How it is resolved only time will tell. However, the woke states are running out of other people’s money and there is no sense that capitalist states will bail them out.


Sinema: A principled Leftist

Democrats and progressives are furious not because Senator Kyrsten Sinema shamelessly flip-flopped or put her career ahead of her convictions, but because she refused to do so.

On a wide array of issues, Senator Kyrsten Sinema is as progressive as they come.

The Arizona Democrat is a one-time Green Party activist who has been an ardent champion of LGBTQ rights, an unwavering supporter of abortion access, a proponent of stiffer gun control regulations, and a defender of affirmative action. Over the past year, her votes in the Senate have aligned with President Biden's position 97.5 percent of the time. In fact, out of 41 major bills and nominations tallied by the website FiveThirtyEight, Sinema has voted with the president on all but one.

But because of that one — her vote last week against eliminating the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster — Sinema has been denounced and demonized by her fellow liberals and Democrats.

She has been labeled a "traitor" to her "constituents" (Representative Jamal Bowman of New York), a "moral disgrace" (Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin), "a sellout" (Senate candidate and former US representative Abby Finkenauer of Iowa), and an "anti-democratic tool" (CBS star Stephen Colbert). She has been excoriated by one MSNBC host for "upholding white supremacy" (Tiffany Cross) and slammed by another as "a menace to the continuation of American democracy" (Keith Olbermann). She has been censured by the executive board of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Yet no one was blindsided or misled by Sinema's vote, which was consistent with the position she has articulated since entering the Senate three years ago. "Whether I'm in the majority or the minority, I would always vote to reinstate the protections for the minority," she said in 2019. "It is the right thing for the country."

In other words, Democrats and progressives are furious not because Sinema shamelessly flip-flopped or put her career ahead of her convictions, but because she wouldn't do so. In the teeth of cruel mockery, open harassment, and the loss of financial and political support, Sinema declined to betray her principles. John F. Kennedy had a term for senators like her. He called them "profiles in courage."


Time for Mayor Eric Adams to “Put Up or Shut Up” on New York City's Crime Wave

There are people who would refuse a visit to the “Big Apple”, even if they won a free all-expenses-paid trip. However, to millions of New York City residents, our country’s largest metropolis is the “apple of their eye”.

Big cities are like that. Their appeal is often in the eye-of-beholder. Nevertheless, no matter if you live in a massive metropolis, or a sleepy little rural community, you aspire to live in a safe and secure environment.

For decades, New York City, and to be fair, dozens of other liberal-run U.S. cities, has been anything but. During the last two years, crime in the Big Apple has skyrocketed. The insane “defund the police” movement and liberal policies by former mayor Bill de Blasio's are to blame.

When you handcuff your law enforcement officers and refuse to crack down on criminals, this is the logical result. However, like most liberal-run states and cities, logic seems to elude these people. Their logic is fewer police officers will make the bad guys repent their evil ways.

Common sense points to the exact opposite. Bill de Blasio is no longer the Mayor of New York City. Many are thankful “Comrade Bill” and his fanatically liberal policies are gone. However, New York City is still “solid blue” when it comes to its political colors.

Despite suffering through de Blasio's abysmal liberal policies, especially those on crime, New Yorkers still seem bent on electing a Democrat to run their city. Eric Adams is the latest Democrat to basically run away with the election.

Adams buried his Republican, Curtis Sliwa, by nearly 40 percentage points. The 2021 New York City Mayoral Election met the definitive definition of a landslide. In sports jargon, it would be deemed a blowout.

Adams won in no small part because he is a Democrat in a heavily liberal city. However, the newly elected mayor of the Big Apple ran on a bunch of promises as well. Eric Adams ran on his strong ties to law enforcement.

In a city befallen by skyrocketing crime, being a retired police captain was a huge plus on Adams’ resume. Having political experience as a former NY State Senator, Adams seemed to possess all the tools to lead the country’s biggest city.

Likewise, Adams has developed the “art of the good political speech”. He seemed to know how to push all the right buttons with New York City voters. In one of the most crime ridden cities in the nation, Adams mentioned all the right talking points when addressing the crisis.

But now that he’s swept his way into office, some are insisting it’s time to “put up or shut up”. As New York City mourns yet another slain police officer, New Yorker’s say it’s time to stop talking about crime and do something about it.

With the freshness of the slaying of NYPD Officer Jason Rivera fresh in everyone’s mind, Adams has vowed to “roll out a real plan”. Nevertheless, this proclamation, however wonderful it sounds, still doesn’t offer a single strategy for ending a wave of violence in the city.

These “proclamations” of “I have a plan” have a nice ring to them on social media, but they’re little more than idle fodder. What bothers people the most is, despite all the talk, Adams hasn’t mentioned a single strategy.

Radical liberal policies within the city and across the state of New York have fueled the crisis. Albany, New York, is where the pitiful bail reform legislation was approved. In addition, New York City’s streets are full of neglected people.

Inside this wave of mental illness and depravity is a criminal element that the system keeps replenishing. An alarming number of New York law enforcement officers have either quit or retired in disgust. Bill de Blasio even shut down some critical NYPD departments.

New York City has a worsening public homelessness crisis. In addition, they approved laws that drop dangerous criminals back on the street within hours of arrest. Incorporate a reduced number of police, no one should be surprised.

The city has turned into a real-life version of the fictional “Gotham City”. However, there is no “Batman” ready to fly in and save them. New Yorkers are counting on newly elected major Eric Adams to do that. Understandably, it’s his job.

Eric Adams is also a politician whose secondary job is to talk a lot. He’s obviously got that aspect of being mayor down. Nevertheless, it’s time to put up or shut up. But in a city as dysfunctional as the Big Apple, no one should be holding their breath.

In a city where liberal Democrats have a stranglehold on political offices, the prospects are bleak. Adams, despite all his noble rhetoric, must contend with a radically liberal state capitol. The New York City District Attorney has already gutted prosecutorial powers.

In light of the recent police officer death, Albany legislators are screaming the famous old fallback “gun control”. They ignore the fact the gun used to kill Rivera was stolen. Eric Adams may really want to curb violence in his city.

However, he better not expect much help from his radical liberal cronies. Maybe it’s time to cast an ominous winged shadow across the New York City skyline. Perhaps it’s time for Gotham to summon a “real Batman”.


Trinity of Terror – Mainstream Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats

While people are galvanized at the mention of Donald Trump, one thing he accomplished was to lay bare the dangerous alliance of the mainstream media, Big Tech, and the Democratic Party. This covert relationship was always there, we all suspected it, but it took a lightning rod like Trump for them to show their true colors. These entities together no longer do they attempt to hide their contempt of conservatives. It is open season, and they are using all of the tools at their disposal in this battle for the soul of America.

They use their influence to shape thinking. This is done through withholding information from the citizens, or simply proclaiming any uncomfortable information as a conspiracy theory or ‘disproved.’ Phrases like ‘proven false narrative,’ are tossed about freely. When that doesn’t work, they simply lie, or reshape the truth to fit their narrative. There is little effort given to presenting information in a balanced manner.

We saw it with the claims that Russia influenced the election – all disproven, but the years’ long smear campaign that was unleashed had done its job, creating the impression in many people that it was a truth. For four years the media claimed that Trump was using his office to generate profit, but not a bit of credible evidence to that claim has ever surfaced. Did Big Tech label these as a proven false narrative? No. Unlike previous President’s, it became open season on Trump’s children and wife.

Let’s not forget Hunter Biden. How could we? he’s the smartest guy Joe Biden knows. When it was clear that the information about his finances and the Big Guy’s links to them would hamstring the Biden campaign, Big Tech simply removed it and the mainstream media refused to cover it. Rather than let the electorate form their own opinions, they simply made the story go away. It is a case of guilt by omission.

take our poll - story continues below
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
The events of January 6 are regularly called an ‘insurrection’ by the media, but no one has been charged with insurrection. There was no possible way that any actions that could have been taken that dark day would have allowed the President to remain in power. Yet we are constantly water-boarded with an out of control protest being called something that has yet to be proven in court. Just because they use that word, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

According to all three elements in this unholy alliance, the 2020 election was pristine – not a single instance of corruption. This would be a first for Presidential elections since the election of George Washington, yet we were told that Biden’s election could not be questioned. Look at how Twitter dealt with it…anyone that posted that they had doubt of the election were labeled a ‘QAnon conspiracy supporter’ and had their accounts removed. Five years ago, this kind of Stalinesque purge would have garnered outcries of censorship with demands for action. Instead, while tens of thousands of conservative voices were silenced, while the Democratic Party gloated. The media barely covered this mass censorship of opposing viewpoints, further establishing their culpability in this alliance.

Remember the news media saying that Trump ordered Lafayette Park cleared for a photo op? That was proven to be an outright lie, but who ever apologized for it, or was held responsible? No one. In the real world, if you made a highly publicized mistake, you would lose your job. There are no repercussions for the media running with outright lies, or for Big Tech censoring views that they don’t agree with. When they are caught, no one loses their jobs or is publically held accountable. At most, a tiny retraction is run, often months after they have inflicted their damage, and even then, it is buried.

It has gone so far now that there are cries to have conservative media channels blocked from cable or satellite TV. The reason is simple – there can only be one voice in the American electorate – that of the progressive left. All other voices are silenced.

Liberals like to gloss over their relationship with the media and Big Tech. That is because it works to their advantage. If this kind of orchestrated online terror campaign was waged against them, they would be the first calling for regulations and controls.

This trinity of terror is a direct threat to our democracy. It makes fair elections all but impossible because only one narrow and dark perspective is offered to the American people. There is no one held accountable for unilaterally censoring differing opinions that don’t fit the desired left-wing narrative.




Thursday, January 27, 2022

Biden poised to name first black woman to Supreme Court

Ha! He has to get his nominee past Manchin and Sinema and both could say no to anyone extreme. It will be a difficult pick for him

The US Supreme Court is set to get its first black woman, with the retirement of liberal justice Stephen Breyer paving the way for Joe Biden to make the historic nomination ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

One year into his first term, the groundbreaking pick may be exactly what the US President needs to reinvigorate his Democrat base after months of policy setbacks.

While Breyer’s retirement won’t alter the balance of power on the bench - conservatives will still make up six out of the nine sitting judges - it will give Biden his first chance to shape America’s top judicial body as it oversees issues such as abortion, immigration and gun rights.

What’s more, appointing an African American woman to the nation’s highest court would deliver on a key election commitment, galvanising Democrats and activists to turn up and vote in critical battlegrounds come November.

There’s no shortage of younger, highly qualified, and potentially more progressive candidates who could be nominated to replace Breyer, an 83-year-old centrist who has served on the bench for 27 years.

The frontrunner is 51-year-old DC Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who Biden elevated last year from the Federal District Court to the US Court of Appeals.

Also in the mix are many other accomplished black women, including former Obama administration official Leondra Kruger, who is now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California; J Michelle Childs, who has been a district judge in South Carolina for the past decade; and civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill, who served as president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund.


Ric Grenell Reveals Who Is Acting As ‘Shadow President’ for ‘Weak’ Biden

image from

Remember when we all were hoping that the government would step up and … hold the government accountable for the coups against Trump and the illegal spying on his campaign? Yeah, me too.

I will be the first to admit that I had hoped that justice would be done and those who spied on Trump and his campaign would be held accountable and trust would be restored in our federal ‘law enforcement’ agencies.

Well, that didn’t work out, now did it?

Instead of those people engaged in the coup being held accountable, they are not RUNNING THE White House & OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. To say ‘this is not good’ is the understatement of the century.

Newsmax reported:

‘Ric Grenell, who served as acting director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration, is blasting Susan Rice and says she is acting as a “shadow president.”

His comments came during an interview on CPAC Now. An excerptof the interview was posted on Twitter by the Conservative Political Action conference.

“Susan Rice has been appointed as domestic policy adviser,” he said. “ That’s a joke. She doesn’t know anything about domestic policy.

“So, she’s a foreign policy expert that’s been placed in the domestic policy role. And that is just a clear signal that all of our international issues, our foreign policies, are going to be treated like domestic policy.

“This is a problem for the Democratic Party. The foreign policy mess that they are creating is a mess because they are placating the far-left domestically. It’s part of that cancel culture.+

Rice and Biden Via Politico

“They’re beating up on Israel because it pleases the far-left. They are trying to reach out to Iran and pretend like the Iranian regime should be respected because it pleases the far progressive left. This is the upsidedown world of the Biden administration. President (Joe) Biden is too weak to stop the progressive left from taking over the domestic and foreign policy. (Vice President) Kamala (Harris) does not understand what’s going on…

“And Susan Rice is really happy that Biden is so weak. We have a shadow president in Susan Rice and no one is paying attention.”

Rice is the former national security adviser for President Barack Obama. At one point she had emerged as a serious contender for consideration for Biden’s running mate in 2020.

Rice has faced criticism over her role in the failed Benghazi response that left four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, dead.

She was also implicated in the unmasking of Americans in intelligence reports during the presidential transition. Some of those Americans turned out to be Donald Trump associates. Rice has denied any wrongdoing.’

They said they were going to ‘fundamentally change’ the United State of America … they weren’t kidding.


How woke whites hurt black communities

In August 2020, a business professor from the University of Southern California gave a Zoom lecture in which he counselled his students against the overuse of filler words such as “um” or “you know”. The professor was teaching American and international Chinese students management communication skills, so he explained that in Mandarin, “the common (filler) word is ‘that, that that … In China, it might be na-ge, na-ge, na-ge.”

Anonymous black students accused the academic of racism and harming their mental health by using a Chinese word that sounded like the n-word. They called for him to be sacked.

Astoundingly, the professor was suspended while the university launched an investigation into his past student evaluations, checking for signs of cultural or racial insensitivity. None were found and he eventually resumed his job – though not the communications course he had been delivering for years. Meanwhile, news of the American students’ complaint reached China, where social media commenters said that punishing an academic for using a common Chinese word amounted to discrimination against Mandarin speakers.

American academic and author John McWhorter refers to this incident in his latest book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. As its provocative title suggests, McWhorter’s book is a scorching denunciation of the politically correct excesses that masquerade as anti-racism across many university campuses and public and private institutions in the 21st century.

He's a white man with a brown skin, by the look of him

He clearly supports that unfairly targeted USC professor. He quips that a black student who feels a Mandarin word that “sounds kind of like the N-word deprives him of his ‘peace and mental well-being’ urgently needs psychiatric counselling”.

McWhorter – who is African-American – does not merely expose the perverted logic and evangelical fervour of woke ideology; he also argues that white activists are endorsing reforms – such as moves to “defund the police” in high-crime African-American neighbourhoods – that can only harm those communities.

“The ideology in question,’’ he writes, “is one under which white people calling themselves our saviours make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species and teach black people to revel in that status.’’

This quote gives you some idea of McWhorter’s take-no-prisoners rhetorical style.

As a black intellectual, he expects to be dismissed as “traitorous” and “self-hating” by a “certain crowd” for writing his scathing polemic. But he reasons that white and black readers who have bought into “unempirical virtue signalling about race” will be more likely to accept a critique of the new ideology if it’s written by an African-American. “I consider it nothing less than my duty as a black person to write this book,” he says.

In Woke Racism, he argues that a well-meaning but insidious form of anti-racism has hardened into a dogmatic religion that sees white privilege as the “original sin”, and weaponises cancel culture to end careers and undermine reputations. This religion, often policed by smug activists whom he calls the “Elect”, has anointed particular writers and thinkers – whose views are treated as sacrosanct – as their clergy.

Those authors include Robin DiAngelo – the white woman who penned the runaway bestseller White Fragility – and black writer Ibram Kendi, who has said it is impossible to be “not racist”. McWhorter argues DiAngelo’s book engages in “Orwellian poppycock” and he dismisses its central argument about white people being too “fragile” to admit their racial privilege: “ ‘You’re a racist, and if you say you aren’t it just proves that you are’– is the logic of the sandbox.”

He does not deny the existence of white privilege “in terms of one’s sense of belonging”. After all, whites are the default category in western societies and see themselves reflected in authority figures. Nonetheless, he accuses the Elect of pushing “a catalogue of contradictions” and imposing an “ideological reign of terror” under which white people are meant to feel permanently tainted by their privilege, even if they are poor, while black people are meant to believe that “the essence of your life is oppression”.

He calls the new religion Third Wave Anti-Racism. While first wave anti-racism activists fought slavery and segregation, and second-wavers battled racist attitudes in the 1970s and 80s, third wave reformers insist that “racism is baked into the structure of society, white ‘complicity’ in living with it constitutes racism itself, while for black people, grappling with the racism surrounding them is the totality of experience and must condition exquisite sensitivity toward them’’.

McWhorter is no card-carrying conservative. He is a respected linguist who teaches at Columbia University and has published more than 20 books including The Power of Babel – an account of how different languages evolved – and Losing the Race, in which he argued that racism’s most poisonous legacy was the defeatism that had infected black America.

He is that rarest of intellectuals – a bravely outspoken academic who cannot be easily classified as left or right-leaning. He is not against the “basic premise” of Black Lives Matter, sensible police reform or the left per se. “What happened to George Floyd was revolting,” he writes. Rather, he is “arguing against a particular strain of the left that has come to exert a grievous amount of influence over American institutions, to the point that we are beginning to accept as normal the kinds of language, policies and actions that Orwell wrote of as fiction”.

Take The New York Times food writer who was suspended in 2020 for “passingly” criticising world-famous Asian celebrities Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo. The Anglo food writer was accused of “punching down” on non-white women. Yet as McWhorter points out, Kondo and Teigen have far more power and influence than the humble hack who was temporarily exiled from her workplace.

The new anti-racism, argues McWhorter, reaches well beyond those individuals whose careers are damaged by saying something the gatekeepers object to. He says it is costing “innocent people their jobs. It is colouring academic inquiry … and sometimes strangling it like kudzu.” In the US, the ideology has infiltrated school-parent meetings, American school and university curriculums and progressive media outlets such as National Public Radio.

The new-wave ideologues do not “genuinely care about the welfare of black people”, he argues, as they insist, for example, that Americans should turn a blind eye to “black kids getting jumped by other ones in school”. Here, he documents how, over the past decade, US teachers have been accused of racial bias because black male public school students from impoverished backgrounds were over-represented in suspension and expulsion statistics.

After the suspensions were labelled racist, under-reporting of violent incidents in schools grew. This led to higher tolerance of classroom disruption and compromised learning in public schools often dominated by non-white students. McWhorter concludes: “The Elect(’s) … religious commitment numbs them to the harm their view does to real children living their lives in the real world.’’

Meanwhile, he claims an ideology that characterises objectivity, command of the written word and punctuality as “white things” is being “foisted on” school districts across America. This is an unsettling development that deserves more attention than McWhorter gives it. It has parallels with how, in some remote Australian Aboriginal communities, western education has at times, been painted as a threat to traditional Indigenous culture, rather than as a tool of empowerment.

McWhorter is a contributor to The New York Times. Even so, he calls out the double standards inherent in the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize to black NYT journalist-turned-academic Nikole Hannah-Jones, despite her widely-attacked claim in the 1619 project that one of the “primary reasons” for the American War of Independence was the preservation of slavery.

He argues, as have prominent historians, that Hannah-Jones’s claim is “quite simply false” (It was later modified by the NYT). Nonetheless, says McWhorter, “our current cultural etiquette” requires that it be “broadcast” in educational materials. Among white woke folk, such reluctance to point out Hannah-Jones’s contentious interpretation of historical documents may “feel like a kind of courtesy, but it is actually patronisation”, he writes.

Interestingly, McWhorter is not the only writer of colour to have resonated strongly with readers by criticising woke posturing, double standards and hypocrisy. Woke Racism made The New York Times bestseller list when it was published late last year and an earlier 2021 release, Woke Inc by American-Indian entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, also surged to the top of the sales charts. Ramaswamy’s book offers an insider’s account of corporate America’s woke “scam”, including aggressively-marketed social justice measures which camouflage business practices that undermine human rights and employees’ rights.

Importantly, Woke Racism is not just a blistering takedown of the Elect’s soft bigotry. McWhorter also proposes practical solutions to entrenched African-American disadvantage, including ending the war on drugs that sees many black men jailed, thus rendering them permanently unemployable and leaving their children without father figures.

He also recommends teaching phonics rather than the whole-word method, as the former is more effective at turning children from impoverished homes into accomplished readers. Thirdly, he wants vocational training for African-Americans to be “as easy to obtain as a college education”. For many poor Americans, black and white, “attending four years of college is a tough, expensive and even unappealing proposition”, yet the debate about educational advancement often focuses solely on university admissions.

While McWhorter asserts that racism remains a real problem, he also contends that “most Americans’ racial attitudes have progressed massively beyond what they were a few decades ago”. Woke activists deny or “talk around” this reality. This should not surprise us, because as McWhorter points out in his courageous, illuminating and beautifully-written book, “with progress, the Elect lose their sense of purpose”.


The Church of England's diversity mission has gone too far

Now embracing racism

Is the Church of England on a mission? It should be, of course. But it appears to have confused its purpose of preaching the gospel with seeking to make itself more representative. From now on, at least ten members of the House of Bishops, part of the General Synod, must be from an ethnic minority. This will help create a ‘church that truly embraces people of global majority heritage at every level of its life,’ says the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.

But it’s hard to reconcile Cottrell’s words with those of Paul to the Galatians:

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’

For the Christian, skin colour should make no difference in spiritual terms. The enlightened Anglican hierarchy of the 19th century certainly understood this. In 1864, the church braved controversy and appointed its first black bishop, Samuel Crowther. An ex-slave freed in 1822 by the Royal Navy’s West Africa squadron, Crowther was jointly presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury for consecration by a colonial prelate and the bishop of Winchester.

While his appointment was historic, it owed nothing to his skin colour. Yet, to borrow the words of Martin Luther King, the House of Bishops’ new scheme risks judging people on the colour of their skin, not on the contents of their heart. There is no doubt the initiative is entirely well-meaning. It will, it is said, make church leadership more representative. But it is still worryingly wrong-headed, and needs to be fought hard.

A church, which very creditably opposed apartheid in South Africa – and many of whose members called out overt racism here in the 1950s and 1960s – is making a serious mistake in setting up what is essentially an official non-white constituency within the Anglican communion.

To make matters worse – and while this was surely not the aim of those who dreamed up this plan – it seems to carry an implicit suggestion that non-white Anglicans are not just as capable of arguing about theology and church government as others and need special help to get their view across. Both these developments should have any decent worshipper, white or non-white, up in arms.

In a church’s governing body, by all means it is right to ask that all shades of spirituality or theology – liberal and conservative, high church and evangelical, and so on – be able to have their voice heard and be represented. But whatever the position with secular governments, it is not the function of a church to be representative of – or promote the interests of – other secular social groups, whether denominated by politics, social class, or race.

Ironically at a time in the liturgical year traditionally associated with prayers for church unity, we have here a suggestion that the church as an institution should become explicitly race-conscious. It’s as if one’s spirituality somehow varies according to a person’s ethnicity or tribal origin. But this is exactly the kind of thought that Christianity has always opposed.

A great deal of religion two thousand years ago was indeed depressingly particular; it was perfectly normal for your acceptability as a worshipper to depend on your ethnicity, position or allegiance. Christianity was as radical as it was – and as attractive – precisely because it turned this view on its head; it openly defied orthodoxy by drawing no distinction at all between those whom it sought to proselytise.

Whatever an average worshipper in a socially-distanced pew may think, these days the talk in General Synod, and on bishops’ benches, is not so much about making the world conform to God’s law as ensuring God’s law as interpreted by the church fits in as neatly as possible with secular trends. Activism aimed at social justice, anti-racism, human sexuality, or whatever, now largely trumps matters of the spirit.

About 60 years ago Michael Wharton, writing the Peter Simple column in the Daily Telegraph, saw a development of this kind coming. You may remember his caricature Dr Spacely-Trellis, the go-ahead Bishop of Bevindon, who habitually referred to Jesus’s disciples as his staff of trained social workers.

The antics of the House of Bishops in calling for things to be seen through the prism of race are not what we should expect from any religious body. But they are exactly what you would expect of a coven of social workers in the Stretchford conurbation. What was a joke in the 1960s is, to the church’s discomfiture, now depressingly real.


Psaki Attacks DeSantis as ‘Crazy’ After FDA Halts Monoclonal Antibodies

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki framed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s objection to the Food and Drug Administration pulling the Emergency Use Authorizations for monoclonal antibodies treatments as “crazy” on Tuesday.

“The FDA yesterday withdrew the EUA for some monoclonal antibody treatments because they don’t work against Omicron,” a reporter asked. “But Florida continues to push for the treatment for people in the state. What’s your response to Governor DeSantis and what’s your message to the people in Florida?”

This was Psaki’s response. Watch:

“Well, let’s just take a step back here just to realize how crazy this is a little bit,” she said. We’ve approached Covid treatments like filling a medicine cabinet. We’re not relying on one type, one brand, or treatment, we invested in and continue to buy a variety across monoclonal antibodies, pre-exposure prevention therapies, and oral antivirals.”

“We have provided 71,000 doses of antivirals to Florida, including 34,000 additional treatments that do work against Omicron just this last week. I’m sorry about a range of those treatments, I should say to be clear.”

“What the FDA is making clear is that these treatments, the ones that they are fighting over, that the governor is fighting over, do not work against Omicron, and they have side effects,” she said with a straight face. “That is what the scientists are saying. We have sent them 71,000 doses of treatments that are effective against Omicron, and are effective also against Delta. And they are still advocating for treatments that don’t work.”

“We’ve seen unfortunately from the beginning in our pandemic response, a range of steps or pushes that have been made through social media platforms, unfortunately from the mouths of elected officials advocating for things that don’t work, even when we have things that do work, injecting disinfectant, promoting other pseudoscience, sowing doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters, and now promoting treatments that don’t work,” she went on. “We know it works, vaccines and boosters, we have a range of doses of things that do work and treatments and we are providing those to Florida.”

Psaki is therefore casting people who tout the efficacy of many early treatments as crackpots and crazies, comparing their usage to a belief in ‘pseudoscience’ and dredging up the misleading talking point about ‘injecting disinfectants,’ a slight on Donald Trump that has been taken out context.

The controversy exploded late Monday when the FDA has pulled the EUAs, causing thousands of monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment appointments to be suddenly canceled. There was strong evidence that the mAbs were helping Covid survival rates under the Delta wave, but even Regeneron stated in December that the effectiveness of the treatments had waned — similar to how the vaccine and booster efficacy has waned.

“We’ve seen unfortunately from the beginning in our pandemic response, a range of steps or pushes that have been made through social media platforms, unfortunately from the mouths of elected officials advocating for things that don’t work, even when we have things that do work, injecting disinfectant, promoting other pseudoscience, sowing doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters, and now promoting treatments that don’t work,” she rambled on.

“We know it works, vaccines and boosters, we have a range of doses of things that do work and treatments and we are providing those to Florida,” she added.

The Florida Department of Health had made an announcement on Monday about the FDA’s “abrupt decision” to pull the EUAs for bamlanivimab/etesevimab as well as Regeneron.

“This evening, without any advanced notice, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for bamlanivimad/etesevimab and REGEN-COV,” Florida Health announced. “The revised EUAs do not allow providers to administer these treatments within the United States.”

The Florida Health Department informed patients that their appointments for the Covid-19 treatment have been canceled. DeSantis had set up infusion sites in five counties: Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, Duval, and Seminole.

“Florida disagrees with the decision that blocks access to any available treatments in the absence of clinical evidence,” the announcement continued. “To date, such clinical evidence has not been provided by the FDA,” it added.

Gov. Ron DeSantis demanded the Biden administration reverse “its sudden and reckless decision” in a statement.

“Without a shred of clinical data to support this action, Biden has forced trained medical professionals to choose between treating their patients or breaking the law,” DeSantis said. “This indefensible edict takes treatment out of the hands of medical professionals and will cost some Americans their lives. There are real-world implications to Biden’s medical authoritarianism – Americans’ access to treatments is now subject to the whims of a failing president.”




Wednesday, January 26, 2022

What the Senate Filibuster Assault Means

Washington wisdom once held that while Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were the public faces of Democratic reluctance to breaking the Senate filibuster, others in the caucus quietly supported the duo. But on Wednesday night, 48 out of 50 Senate Democrats voted to use the “nuclear option” in an attempt to overturn election laws in most states.

That means the partisan abolition of the Senate’s 60-vote requirement for most legislation is no longer an abstraction. It’s an institutional Democratic Party position—a trigger that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has committed to pull as soon as he has 50 votes and a co-partisan as Vice President. Democrats may have failed to ram their legislation through this week, but they have changed the nature of the U.S. Senate merely by trying to make it a majoritarian body for the first time. The fallout should start in this year’s midterms in competitive states.


Mr. Schumer brought partisan voting-rules legislation to the floor Wednesday despite the insistence of Sens. Sinema and Manchin that they wouldn’t change Senate rules to allow it to pass with only 50 votes. Democrats then embarked on a flight of procedural fantasy, claiming they could prevail by demanding only a “talking filibuster”—a meaningless distinction as their version would still guarantee the legislation could be rammed through.

They lost 48 to 52, but the paucity of Democratic dissenters is astonishing given recent Senate history. Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, went along after defending the filibuster well into the new Congress. She said last June that she might scrap the filibuster if “democracy were in jeopardy,” but “I don’t see it being in jeopardy right now.”
Newsletter Sign-up
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report

Chris Coons, the Delaware Senator who cultivates a bipartisan reputation, also voted to destroy the filibuster. In 2017 he led a coalition of 32 Democrats declaring they are “united in their determination” to maintain it. Twenty-nine GOP Senators also signed Mr. Coons’s letter. That’s right: While only two Democrats still back the filibuster under Mr. Biden, more than half of the Republican caucus supported it as a guardrail on their own majority under Donald Trump.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, who had been noncommittal on the issue, also fell in line, though he faces a competitive election this November. He likely fears a Democratic primary challenge, but his vote will put new issues at play in the general election. Now that he’s committed to torch Senate rules on a partisan basis, a simple Democratic majority could add states to the U.S. or pack the Supreme Court.

When rules constrain Senate partisanship, voters in swing states can view candidates as independent figures rather than partisan foot-soldiers. Now that changes: To elect even a 50-50 Senate with a Democratic President could be to authorize much of the progressive agenda.

This will be a hard perception to shake on the 2022 campaign trail for Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire and Michael Bennet in Colorado, both of whom also signed Mr. Coons’s 2017 letter, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. Raphael Warnock of Georgia benefited in his 2021 runoff election from Mr. Manchin’s 2020 promise that he wouldn’t eliminate the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate. Now voters need to keep in mind that Mr. Manchin’s commitment means nothing if Democrats pick up two seats in 2022.

As for Republicans, the next GOP Senate majority will now be under much more pressure to eliminate the filibuster as a pre-emptive procedural strike. Populist Senators will point to this week’s vote to say that Democrats are planning to change the rules as soon as they get back into power. GOP leader Mitch McConnell and other institutionalists will have more trouble talking them down.

The intellectuals pushing to kill the filibuster claim the Senate’s structure is biased against Democrats, and may lock them out of power for a decade. That claim is wildly exaggerated—weren’t Democrats eyeing a 53 or 54 seat majority in 2020? But if it were true, then it would be even more short-sighted to dismantle protections for the minority party.


Speaking of short-sighted, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are already opening the door to primary challenges to Sens. Manchin and Sinema. Good luck keeping the seat with another candidate in West Virginia, where Mr. Trump won by 39 points. Progressives want to take revenge on a moderate Democrat by easing the path to GOP Senate majorities.

This week’s filibuster vote undermines checks and balances in the U.S. political system. With the rise of straight-ticket voting, Presidents are increasingly elected with congressional majorities. The limitations on what those majorities can do is rapidly attenuating, and if voters don’t send a contrary message, the result will be a combustible mix of greater polarization, partisan brinkmanship and heightened election stakes.


Industrialist Sir Richard Arkwright condemned for profiting from the slave trade, says English Heritage

Not remotely a balanced perspective

The legacy of Sir Richard Arkwright, the British inventor credited with pioneering factory production in the 18th century, has been reassessed due to his profiting from the cotton trade during the Industrial Revolution.

English Heritage has included claims that the mill owner benefited from a system which “exploited enslaved workers from Africa”, in updated online information for his blue plaque.

The update, made as part of a review of blue plaques launched in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, has drawn criticism from historians concerned that history is being viewed only through the lens of the slave trade, and that ordinary workers could also be found guilty by association with a cotton industry that was supported by slavery.

New online information stated: “Arkwright’s wealth from the cotton industry was inextricably linked to the transatlantic slave trade which reached its peak in the 18th century. The system exploited enslaved workers from Africa to work under horrifying conditions in the cotton plantations in the Americas.

“It is inevitable that any mill working in Britain at this time would have sourced the majority of their cotton from the slave plantations. As such, mill owners such as Arkwright both contributed to and benefitted [sic] from, the slave trade.”

In the 1770s, Sir Richard developed a “carding” machine which sped up the process prior to spinning, along with spinning frames speeding up the process of turning cotton fibre into workable yarn.

He used these machines in a string of mills, including a major complex in Cromford, Derbyshire, where his creation of a disciplined working day of 13-hour shifts, involving mechanised manufacturing, led to him being nicknamed the “Father of the Factory System”.

However, the factory system was criticised at the time, especially for making use of child labour, which made up a large proportion of Sir Richard’s workforce, and for subjecting workers to dangerous and inhumane conditions.

Concerns have been raised that English Heritage’s update on Sir Richard, which ties him to the slave trade, could also attach to guilt to factory workers who indirectly benefited from the cotton trade by working in his mills.

Prof Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge, said: “Richard Arkwright, a working-class man who invented a machine for spinning cotton, is apparently being blamed for slavery, because most cotton was grown by slaves. So presumably workers in cotton mills, their dependents, and all their customers are also responsible.

“By this logic, everybody was to blame – which is perhaps the best conclusion, as slavery and other forms of coerced labour were part of the world economy for millennia, and created much of what we now consider ‘world heritage’.”

Prof Neil Biggar, a theology expert at the University of Oxford, has criticised the viewing of Sir Richard’s legacy purely through the lens of slavery, calling it a “politically biased, monomaniacal focus”.

Dr Zareer Masani, a historian on British colonialism, said: “Reducing all history to that of slavery and then tracing links to it, however tenuous, of most people of influence, especially in the 18th century, has become a popular pastime with our new arbiters of taste since Black Lives Matter.”

He added that this analysis misses the “ills of factory labour far closer to home”.


Who is Labour's hero? A nurse who stopped a man seeing his dying wife

For once there is an actual difference between Labour and the Tories. And in one official tweet by the Labour Party, you can see what it is.

The tweet was issued by the Labour Party on January 13 and has attracted remarkably little attention.

In truth, it should have led every bulletin and been on every front page, for it takes you directly into the mind of Sir Keir Starmer and all the other lockdown fanatics, in a way never previously possible.

It approvingly quotes a nurse, whose name is given as ‘Jenny, NHS nurse’. She says: ‘I remember May 20, 2020 vividly. I spent hours on the phone to a man who was in the hospital car park, utterly desperate to see his wife.

‘He begged, wept, shouted to be let in but we said no – for the greater good of everyone else. She died unexpectedly and alone, as the Government had a party.’

I feel sorry for ‘Jenny’, because she was deluded by fear propaganda and did not really know what she was doing. But I still think that what she did was terribly wrong.

If I had prevented a husband from seeing his dying wife ‘for the greater good of everyone else’, while the poor man begged and shouted for mercy, I might now keep quiet about it.

Even more, I might feel a deep sense of regret and shame that my self-righteous officiousness had so utterly blinded me to the simple human necessity for kindness above all.

God knows we are all capable of appalling cruelty, but it is never worse than when we think we are doing it for a good reason. This is why all Utopias end with the idealists arresting and then killing those who will not conform to the new paradise. The fanaticism of the Covid authoritarians is frantic mainly because they think that what they are doing is unquestionably right.

You don’t want people like Jenny running the Government.


Woke cancel culture crazies demanding candy must now be 'all-inclusive'

Just when you thought the insanity of cancel culture couldn’t get any crazier, it just did. We’ve watched decades-old pancake syrup symbols get canceled. Beloved children’s book characters have been canceled. Iconic butter logos have evaporated. Sports’ teams are left mascot-less.

We need to appreciate that cancel culture targets people, places and even things. Nothing is outside its crosshairs. The reasons for getting canceled usually revolve around some heinous behavior. Sure, some people do bad things and earn well-deserved condemnation for such.

However, many of the targets of this “wave of crazy calls for societal cancellation” are inanimate objects. Statues are a huge focal point of the “wacko wokies”. If anything offends these sensitive souls, it needs to be erased. There’s no debate. There’s no discussion. It must go.

Cartoons, especially, have been under a weary assault from the cancel culture mob. An iconic Warner Brothers skunk, Pepé Le Pew, was canceled for seemingly being a little too provocative with a lady cat. When we first heard this one, we thought it was a bad joke. It wasn’t.

The cancel culture police skunked a cartoon skunk. Charles Blow, a radical New York Times rag contributor, instigated the whole Pepé the Pew scandal. Somehow, we’re not surprised. Books have been canceled. If a t-shirt slogan offends some wokie, expect it to be up for cancellation.

It’s like a modern-day lynching. However, don’t tell the woke mob that. Actor Rowan Atkinson, aka Mr. Bean, said it pretty succinctly. He sees cancel culture as “a medieval mob looking for someone to burn.” No one is exempt from this radical legion of doom.

It doesn’t matter how long ago someone did something or said something wrong. If you made an irredeemably insensitive comment as a teenager, expect to feel the wrath of the cancel culture police. Again, it’s a mob looking for victims; often innocent victims.

The cancel culture police incessantly attack politicians, conservatives, of course. President Donald Trump has been the most prominent. Two social media companies slammed shut the former president’s ability to communicate on social media. It’s a disgrace.

Even though a chunk of the things targeted by cancel culture seem senseless, we’d think candy would avoid prosecution. Nope, cancel culture and the wokists’ all-inclusive agenda just hit one of America’s favorite little chunks of chocolate, some with peanuts.

M&M’s are either racist or homophobic; we’re uncertain which. Or at least that’s the opinion of the cancel culture police. So, the problem needs to be corrected by making these little bite-sized delights “all-inclusive”. Yep, we’re not kidding.

Mars Wrigley owns the M&M Candy franchise. The obviously “woke company” issued a heartfelt statement about their beloved little candy guys and gals. They announced “a global commitment to creating a world where everyone feels they belong and society is inclusive.”

Sure, we’re all for things that make society better. Everybody deserves to feel like they belong. That should be a noble goal for every human being. But how in the world can candy be all-inclusive? Well, we’re about to expose you to some of the craziest cancel culture notions yet.

You see, the little green ones in your M&M bag, their “peachy legs” and “stiletto boots” are somehow potentially offensive. No kidding, that’s one of the company’s all-inclusive changes. Some M&M eater, in their infinite wisdom, felt the “green guys” were too sexualized.

We’re sorry, but if someone can generate sexualized thoughts about a green, bite-sized piece of candy, there’s a specially padded room necessary. Now, the brown M&M’s didn’t avoid scrutiny either. They must have the heels on their little boots lowered to “professional height”.

We’ll give you a chance to catch your breath if you’re laughing as hard as we did. Oh, and the little rivalry between the green and brown M&M’s? That’s over. Company spokespersons insist these rival candies will be “together, throwing shine and not shade”.

Now, there were some very positive changes made. Ahem. The little orange M&M’s will finally get their sneakers tied properly. I guess that must have broadcast some sort of “slacker” connotation. And we’re certain everyone is left asking one critical question.

What are they going to do with those big bullies, the red M&M’s? These nefarious red instigators will now start to be nicer to their fellow candy members. Take a deep breath now. The wave of cancel culture is so far out of control, it’s impossible to keep up.

Sometimes it’s funny, but usually it’s not. Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves fans better leave their favorite headdress at home on game day. The Washington Redskins are now a mascot-less team. The Cleveland Indians bid a fond farewell to Chief Wahoo.

This is a crackdown on things that seem meaningless. If it weren’t so sad, it really would be funny. However, these clowns are totally serious. Better clean up your act, “Donald”. You’re one “Duck” who might be the next victim on these “quack’s” list to be publicly "tarred and feathered".


It takes 8 years to get an apology from the London police after their disgusting behaviour

Even the sergeant in charge was complicit

image from

The Metropolitan Police force has apologised to an academic over “sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language” used about her during a strip-search at a north London police station.

Dr Konstancja Duff has previously described suffering lasting trauma following her treatment by police, who arrested her on suspicion of obstructing and assaulting police on 5 May 2013 after she tried to hand a “know-your-rights” legal advice card to a 15-year-old being stopped and searched in Hackney.

While Dr Duff, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, was later cleared of the charges in court, she was taken to Stoke Newington police station, where her clothes were cut off with a pair of scissors after she refused to co-operate with officers.

CCTV footage recently released to her as part of a civil lawsuit against the force, which has now reportedly agreed to pay her compensation, “backed up what I had said in my statements for years and years”, Dr Duff said, alleging that she had faced “a barrage of misinformation” with claims that officers had been acting professionally out of concern for her safety.

In the footage, published by The Guardian, Sergeant Kurtis Howard, who was in charge of the custody area – and was cleared of wrongdoing by a disciplinary panel in 2018 – can be heard directing colleagues to show Dr Duff that “resistance is futile” and to search her “by any means necessary”.

“Treat her like a terrorist, I don’t care,” he adds.

Following the search, during which Dr Duff alleged she was pinned to the cell floor with her legs tied together and touched inappropriately, a male officer asks: “Didn’t find anything untoward on her, ladies?” One female officer replies: “A lot of hair.”

In another clip, one officer references a “smell”, and another says: “Oh, it’s her knickers.”

Dr Duff told The Guardian that the CCTV exchanges exposed “the culture of sexualised mockery, the dehumanising attitude” displayed while she was strip-searched, adding: “The crucial issue is that racism, misogyny [and] sexual violence, are normalised in policing.

“And the way in which they treated me, the fact that’s normal is shown by the way that at every level of the system it was rubber-stamped for eight years.”

In an apology, Inspector Andy O’Donnell from Scotland Yard’s directorate of professional standards, reportedly told Dr Duff: “I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely and unreservedly apologise for the sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language used about you and for any upset and distress this may have caused.

“I hope that settlement of this claim and this recognition of the impact of what happened that day will enable you to put this incident behind you.”

The Met said in a statement: “In November 2021, the Met settled a claim following the arrest of a woman in Hackney in May 2013. We have sincerely apologised to the complainant for the language used while she was in custody and any distress caused.

“Following the conclusion of the civil claim, allegations of misconduct relating to these comments were referred to our Directorate of Professional Standards and are currently being investigated. This investigation remains ongoing.”

London mayor Sadiq Khan was among those to react with dismay on Monday to the “utterly disgraceful” incident. “I strongly condemn the derogatory and sexist actions towards Dr Duff,” he tweeted. “The Met are right to have apologised for this appalling incident. Women in our city must be able to trust the police.”