Rioters Clash With DC Police, Try To Tear Down Andrew Jackson Monument, Set Up ‘Black House Autonomous Zone’

Rioters gathered Monday in Lafayette Square before the White House where they clashed with police as they attempted to tear down a monument to former U.S. President Andrew Jackson and set up a “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

Video footage from on the ground Daily Caller reporters shows rioters attempting to pull down the monument to Jackson early on in the evening. The protesters chanted, “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Andrew Jackson’s got to go,” Fox News reported. The rioters were unsuccessful in tearing down the monument before police arrived on the scene.

WATCH:

As the rioters were forced to move further away from the statue, they began to get more angry and indignant and began to fight the police, reporters on the ground said.

Subsequent footage shows the rioters clashing with police, who used a chemical irritant believed to be pepper spray, their shields, and a bicycle wall to push the rioters back away from the monument, WUSA9 reports.

Several reporters, including Daily Caller video editor Richie McGinniss, were hit by the pepper spray.

WATCH:

The rioters then proceeded to vandalize St. John’s church, which has previously been vandalized in riots earlier during the summer. Rioters spray painted “BHAZ” on the historic church, which stands for “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

Footage shows that some rioters lit a fire on the ground, which others quickly put out, sparking arguments.

“Defund the Police,” a rioter shouts into a megaphone at a group of police officers, many of whom are kneeling. “Fuck all y’all.”

WATCH:

COLUMN BY

MARY MARGARET OLOHAN

Social issues reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Daily Caller Reporters Go Inside Seattle’s CHAZ

‘I Was Just Yelling … Come And Help Me’: Reporter Details Alleged Assault While Filming Inside ‘CHAZ

Historic St. John’s Church Set Ablaze In DC As Another Night Of Riots Engulfs Country

Victim Of Rioting Says She Is Being Threatened For Helping Police Find People Who Destroyed Her Store

Police Arrest 2 St. Louis Women After Protesters Paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ On The Street

Communist Emblem Spray Painted On North Carolina WWII Memorial

RELATED VIDEO: Anni Cyrus Video – The Riots in the Context of My Own Enslavement.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Seattle’s CHOP Worse Than The ‘Complete And Total Anarchy’ Of Occupy Wall Street, NY Police Union Exec Says

RELATED VIDEO:


  • Vice president of Sergeants Benevolent Association Vincent Vallelong compared the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011 to the present-day Seattle occupation known as CHOP.
  • He fears the Seattle occupation is far more grave than what he saw in 2011 in Manhattan and suggests Seattle PD is being stymied by local officials. 
  • Vallelong said Seattle law enforcement missed a critical opportunity to quash this occupation early on and the presence of armed demonstrators complicates law enforcement efforts to take control of the situation. 

The mass encampments in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations of 2011 were far less dangerous and appalling than Seattle’s autonomous zone protest, according to a New York police union executive.

Vice president of the Sergeant’s Benevolent Association Vincent Vallelong witnessed the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that protested economic inequality in Manhattan first hand, observing rampant filth and crime in the tent city. The armed encampment in Seattle now better known as the Capital Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) is even more dangerous, he told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

Vallelong noted that Occupy Wall Street demonstrators only commandeered a single New York City block, while Seattle demonstrators have assumed control of multiple city streets and buildings, including a police precinct. He suggested the Seattle activists are far more entrenched.

“In New York, they were contained to a park. They only had one long city block where they set up their tents. It was like a flea market in a sense, and they brought their own fleas with them. Over in Seattle, they gave up city buildings and city streets,” he said.

“I’ve been involved in numerous demonstrations, numerous catastrophes that have happened in New York since the ’90s. I’ve seen a lot,” he said. “I have [police] friends in Seattle that I just got off the phone with earlier today and it’s like their will is broken. Some of them are just talking about leaving and not coming back.”

To Vallelong, all of this was preventable in the early hours of the insurrection. Instead, it was allowed to persist and grow.

“[The] right course of action would of been the same thing that they should’ve did in New York here when the demonstrations got out of hand. Should’ve went in, should’ve locked up all the people who they deemed as being the leaders and they should’ve been kept in jail for two to three days before seeing a judge,” he said.

Occupy Wall Street — a series of demonstrations protesting economic inequality — had its epicenter in privately-owned Zuccotti Park in Manhattan. Protesters camped in a one-block area for months on end, according to a 2011 CBS News report.

Vallelong — who’s been involved with police work since 1990 — called the 2011 encampments in Zuccotti park “disgusting.” He said fecal matter lined the streets and the tent city was akin to the embodiment of “anarchy.”

“We’re talking like fecal matter — just people were not washing,” he told the DCNF.

COLUMN BY

JAKE DIMA

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Before And After Photos: Here’s What Seattle’s ‘CHAZ’ Has Done To The City

Black Corrections Officers Allegedly Barred From Guarding Chauvin File Discrimination Complaint

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Blue Flu’ as Atlanta Police Walk Out. Will Other Pushbacks Follow?

Last week reports trickled in on Wednesday of Atlanta police synchronizing a refusal to come into work or calling out sick, dubbing the event a “Blue Flu.” The walkouts are suspected to be a response to the murder charge assigned to a fellow officer following the killing of Rayshard Brooks before an investigation was concluded.

Trying to minimize the PR damage, the Atlanta Police Department formally tweeted that it wasn’t a “walkout,” but a “call out,” adding that they had confidence that operations would be maintained.

However, information continued to pour in, pointing to a “blue wall” of solidarity within the Atlanta Police Department.

As people shuffled through information, one thing stood out: On Wednesday night, police scanners for Zone 6 were dead silent.

By Thursday morning, it was announced that every Atlanta police officer was slated to receive a one-time $500 bonus as thanks for their hard work during protests and COVID-19 courtesy of the Atlanta Police Foundation.

However, critics noted that it was perhaps a desperate attempt to retain law enforcement on the job to protect a city that could nosedive into open violence without a lack of police presence. Significantly, this pushback by law enforcement is the first institutional counter-demonstration since the riots and attacks of law enforcement.

What Happens When the Cavalry Quits?

The trickle-down effect of the open extremism being displayed in the U.S. via Antifa, the open riots and the pressure to conform to the protesters’ dictates, is impacting the other side of the country as well. In Los Angeles, on the same day, transit officers didn’t show up for work after it was announced that they could no longer be given overtime pay.

Law enforcement isn’t the only industry impacted by open extremism in the United States. Trucker drivers have also voiced their concerns, adding that they won’t deliver to cities which have defunded their police departments:

“…if something was to happen and you have to take matters into your own hands, and then you risk being prosecuted for protecting yourself.” – Truck Driver

Additional concerns for truckers included questions of basic safety in an industry where many are already hassled for parking, getting a meal or using a restroom. They were also concerned about unloading for vendors in cities where looting has taken place.

Los Angeles and New York have already significantly cut spending on police. They are also two locations where residents rely on truck drivers to deliver everything from food to medicine and basic household goods. Minneapolis, on the other hand, is not only defunding the police department but disbanding it altogether.

Whether disbanded or compromised, lack of law enforcement presence puts all citizens at risk. The owner of Car Tender, an auto shop bordering the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Free Zone (CHAZ — now renamed CHOP, the Capital Hill Organized Protest), says he called 911 several times last Sunday but no police officer ever showed up.

The shop was being broken into by a protester who tried to steal cash, keys to the cars and set the shop on fire. Auto shop owner John McDermott and his son eventually detained the suspect themselves after over a dozen calls to 911. Even though the 911 operator indicated (at least during the first few calls) someone was being sent over, no one showed up — neither the police nor the fire department.

Eventually, the operator said to McDermott that no one would be coming to the call, indicating it was too dangerous, that the police had to preserve their own lives and they had families they had to go home to at the end of the day, as well.

In attempting to detain the suspect, the suspect attempted to slash McDermott’s son with a box cutter. Soon other protesters arrived on the scene and demanded the suspect be released.

“I don’t know what to expect next. If you can’t call the police department, you can’t call the fire department to respond, what do you have? Heartbroken. I mean, they are the cavalry.” – John McDermott

McDermott’s right. At the end of the day, law enforcement is the cavalry. What do you do when the cavalry walks out?

As protesters riot against America and its institutions, they often don’t stop to consider the security those institutions provide. While reforms may be needed across many sectors, radically dismantling infrastructure is an extreme reaction that puts everyone’s lives at greater risk and opens the country to greater vulnerability to foreign extremist agendas.

RELATED STORIES:

Hezbollah Uses Argentina as Launching Pad into U.S.

How Antifa is Changing the Face of America

Accelerating Extremism: Our Humanity is Our Escape Hatch

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SPECIAL VIDEO REPORT: The Truth Behind BLM — Pushing LGBT, Marxism, abortion!

People around the world have rallied under the Black Lives Matter banner, believing it’s about racial equality. But in fact, its true agenda is far more sinister. Even more disturbing is the way Catholic clergy are seeking to find common cause with this movement.

WATCH: Special Report: The Truth Behind BLM

VIDEO BY:

Christine Niles

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Under Siege by Rabid Communist BLM Revolutionaries

Black Lives Matter Co-Founders: ‘We Are Trained Organizers – We Are Trained Marxists’

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CNN Puts Up Fence Outside Atlanta Headquarters Amid Ongoing Protests

CNN put up a fence around its headquarters in Atlanta on Friday amid ongoing “Black Lives Matter” protests.

Demonstrations continued outside the Georgia state capitol Friday over the death of Rayshard Brooks, who was fatally shot June 12 in Atlanta by a police officer after running away with the officer’s taser. Photos posted by Townhall reporter Julio Rosas show CNN’s nearby headquarters surrounded by the new barrier following damage from an earlier protest that turned into a riot.

The building was attacked by rioters in late May, with the damage including a number of broken glass windows and spray paint on the CNN logo. A video showed the crowd cheering as people threw objects at the windows.

Nationwide protests and riots erupted after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died May 25 after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes. Peaceful demonstrations turned into riots in many cities, and the situation has escalated in Atlanta following Brooks’ death.

Protesters burned down the Wendy’s where Brooks was shot when riots began Saturday.

The Atlanta Police Foundation, a charity established to support the city’s mayor and police forces, gave officers a $500 bonus Thursday due to their work during the protests and replaced the vehicles that were destroyed.

After former Officer Garrett Rolfe was charged with murder Wednesday for the shooting of Rayshard Brooks, Atlanta police officers reportedly walked off the job mid-shift.

COLUMN BY

JORDAN LANCASTER

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Phone Audio Shows Dispatcher Was Concerned With George Floyd Response

Here’s How Trump Could Win In November

Two Teenagers Arrested For Vandalizing New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral During Protests

President Trump Warns ‘Looters And Lowlifes’ Against Disrupting Tulsa Rally

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: ‘Black Lives Matter’ [Video]

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Planned Parenthood (PP) is the newest vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the cognitive dissonance involved. The abortion giant has demonstrated no regard for human lives in general and black lives in particular.

At least two Planned Parenthood affiliates in different regions of the country are now publicly backing Black Lives Matter. Yet racial equality and respect for human life — particularly black lives — is exactly what Planned Parenthood is not concerned with, recognizes Stan Guthrie, author, minister, and contributing editor for Breakpoint, a Christian website whose content “cuts through the fog of relativism … with truth and compassion.”

Guthrie speaks for countless thinking people when figuratively scratching his head, he points out the clear hypocrisy.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon states:

Black and Brown communities in the United States have suffered murder, violence, trauma and overt and covert racism perpetrated by white people and white-led systems and institutions throughout our country’s entire history. This state-sanctioned violence and murder is not new, but it is intolerable and horrific and must stop. Black lives matter.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast says:

The over-policing of black bodies extends far beyond the actions of individual police officers. It is in our workplaces, our schools, our public institutions. It is in our health care system. It is that same policing of black bodies that makes the promise of reproductive freedom unattainable for so many black people in this country.

The first, obvious contradiction is that Planned Parenthood kills preborn babies. That is a prime money-maker for the abortion giant.

According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report for 2018–2019, it committed 345,672 prenatal murders in the United States in fiscal year 2018. That means 1,768 babies every single day. Its approximately 3 million abortions since 2011 is 38% of all surgical abortions committed in the United States.

Black lives: ‘human weeds’ to ‘exterminate’

With regard to race, Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

“Birth control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practiced,” Sanger once said. “It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Who she may have meant by “human weeds” was clarified in a letter of Dec. 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble. Sanger explained the nature of her organization’s outreach to the African-American community, saying: “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger also said in her writings that immigrants, the “unfit,” the “delinquent and dependent classes,” and the “feeble-minded” should be controlled, if not weeded out.

Contraception, in her mind, was a great tool for doing so. She said it is a “powerful weapon against national and racial decadence.” Ostensibly, Sanger wanted her Birth Control League, the precursor of Planned Parenthood, to use birth control as a weapon against racial minorities as well as the mentally and physically handicapped.

Black Lives Still Targeted

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood tends to target minorities in impoverished areas of the country. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population,” reported Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal.

According to Illinois Right to Life and the 2010 Census, 79% of the Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of minority communities. And this is not without effect. In some cities, such as New York, black abortions outnumber black live births by thousands every year.

This is why groups such as Blacks for Life and BlackGenocide.org have sprung up to defend black babies from the abortion suction machine and black communities from the disproportionate number of babies lost each year due to abortion

As commentators note, Planned Parenthood and Black Lives Matter are certainly strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican Hails BLM as ‘Non-Violent’

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Catastrophe of Fatherless America

Much of the mayhem we see today is linked to fatherlessness.

Around this time we celebrate Father’s Day. But fathers in our culture have not recently appeared very important—at least according to Hollywood and other culture-shapers.

We used to have programs like “Father Knows Best” or “Leave It to Beaver” with a respectable father figure. Then we devolved to Archie Bunker on “All in the Family.” He was the stereotypical bigoted, benighted patriarch who was not worthy of emulation.

Then we devolved to Homer Simpson, the buffoonish dad, who was anything but a role model.

Of course, in many households today, there is no dad. And that’s a serious problem. So many of the children in fatherless homes begin life at a serious disadvantage. The breakdown of the family at large has caused a huge crisis in our society. For instance, statistics show that the majority of prison inmates come from broken families.

Fatherlessness is a serious blight on American life. As the family goes, so goes society. And, contrary to what the left says (who spend much of their energy diminishing traditional gender roles and arguing that whatever “family you choose” is just as good as the real thing), fathers are integral to the life of a child.

Take an example. What is it that is devastating the black community today? Many in our current climate would say the main issue is racism. But sociologically, cultural pathologies are linked closely to poverty. And poverty is linked closely to the structure of the family. Government subsidies (by which the left buys votes) has created a permanent underclass of people by subsidizing fatherlessness and unemployment.

Prior to the Great Society, the rate of illegitimacy in the black community was relatively low and families were intact. And as economist Thomas Sowell points out, the poverty rate for African-Americans fell by 40 percent from 1940 to 1960—just before the “Great Society” welfare programs. Today, the illegitimacy rate is over 75%, which is devastating—by virtually all accounts.

I remember many years ago when I attended an “evangelical church” in Chicago that was a little on the liberal side. One of the lay leaders, a man, got up and prayed, and he said, “Our Father, Our Mother….”

I was thinking, “What?!?” So I asked him after the service about the unorthodox prayer.

His response was that that church was in the shadow of the most notorious housing project in the city, Cabrini-Green. Fatherlessness was a huge problem there. Most people growing up there had a negative feeling about their earthly father because he was absent or drunk or abusive. Cabrini-Green was such a disaster that it has since been torn down.

In his book, Hearts of the Fathers, Charles Crismier notes that many American children today lack the “God-ordered earthly anchor for soul security” because dad is not in the home. He notes, “It is well known but seldom discussed, whether in the church house or the White House, that fatherlessness lies at the root of nearly all of the most glaring problems that plague our modern, now post-Christian life.”

For example, take the issue of poverty. Says Crismier, “Children living in female-headed homes have a poverty rate of 48 percent, more than four times the rate for children living in homes with their fathers and mothers.”

He points out that fathers are so important in the Bible, beginning with God the Father, that the words “father,” “fathers,” and “forefathers” appear 1,573 times.

Obviously, children in fatherless homes can survive and even thrive despite that handicap. But what a better thing it is to follow God’s design for the family.

There’s also a link between fatherlessness and unbelief. About 20 years ago, when he was a professor at New York University, Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book, The Faith of the Fatherless. In that book he showed how famous atheists and skeptics in history had virtually no father figure in their life or a very negative father.

As examples, he cites Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Thomas Hobbs, and Sigmund Freud, among others.

Conversely, Vitz found that strong believers often had positive fathers or father figures. In an interview for Christian television, he told me, “I would say the biggest problem in the country is the breakdown of the family, and the biggest problem in the breakdown in the family is the absence of the father. Our answer is to recover the faith, particularly for men, and we’ll recover fatherhood. And if we recover fatherhood, we’ll recover the family. If we recover the family, we’ll recover our society.”

If you’re a father and you stay with your children and you love your wife, you’re a real hero and roll model. Keep it up—our nation is counting on you.

Trump’s Executive Order on Improving Policing Brings Welcome News in Troubled Times

Since the tragic and inexcusable killing May 25 of George Floyd, Americans have called for police reform. Some proposed “reforms”—such as demands to defund or dismantle police departments—are misguided, while more measured responses may be appropriate.

After all, when tragic incidents like this occur, as they occasionally do, it is often the police who suffer the greatest backlash, both in threats to their own physical safety and in growing distrust from some in the communities they are sworn to serve and protect.

As I stated last week in a commentary with my colleague Cully Stimson: “Unfortunately, when a heinous crime like that occurs—regardless of whether it was the result of overt racism or just horrifically bad training or judgment—it rips the scab off an old and deep wound and rubs salt in it.”

Even though there are more African American police officers in positions of leadership than ever before, the police carry a lot of historical baggage—and they know it.


The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>


House Democrats have introduced their police reform bill—the Justice in Policing Act—and Republicans in the House and Senate reportedly may soon unveil their own proposals.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, signed an executive order Tuesday titled “Safe Policing for Safe Communities” and it is a definite step in the right direction.

In fact, this executive order builds on steps the president already has taken. Last October, the president created a Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, tasked, among other things, with looking at how to improve police departments’ relations with the communities they serve.

According to commission member Frederick Frazier, a 24-year veteran of the Dallas Police Department, the law enforcement commission already has conducted nine hearings, held 35 panels, heard from 125 witnesses, and received 190 written statements.

At a roundtable event Thursday in Dallas, Trump said: “We’re working to finalize an executive order that will encourage police departments nationwide to meet the most current professional standards for the use of force, including tactics for de-escalation.  Also, we’ll encourage pilot programs that allow social workers to join certain law enforcement officers so that they work together.”

At that same event, Attorney General William Barr said: “More and more, our police are being asked to deal with problems that [haven’t] previously been the problem of law enforcement. They have to deal with homeless people. They have to deal with a lot of mental health issues. They have to deal with … drug addiction, the drug addicts, and so forth. And providing some additional support to the police in these areas is going to be important.”

The new executive order addresses these and other issues. It does not sugarcoat the extent and nature of the problem.

After acknowledging that federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers “place their lives at risk every day to ensure that [our] rights are preserved,” Trump’s order continues:

Unfortunately, there have been instances in which some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people, with tragic consequences for individual victims, their communities, and our Nation. All Americans are entitled to live with the confidence that the law enforcement officers and agencies in their communities will live up to our Nation’s founding ideals and will protect the rights of all persons. Particularly in African American communities, we must redouble our efforts as a Nation to swiftly address instances of misconduct.

In terms of professional standards, the executive order directs the attorney general to set standards and certify independent credentialing bodies that will, among other things, assess the efficacy of law enforcement agencies’ policies and training regarding use-of-force techniques (including prohibiting the use of chokeholds “except in those situations where deadly force is allowed by law”), de-escalation techniques, and early warning systems to identify problematic personnel issues, as well as practices around community engagement.

To incentivize law enforcement agencies to subject their policies and practices to this review, the order states that the attorney general

shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those State and local law enforcement agencies that have sought or are in the process of seeking appropriate credentials from a reputable independent credentialing body certified by the Attorney General.

It also provides that the attorney general should require credentialing bodies to confirm that any law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local law before it may be considered to be credentialed.

To prevent a situation where bad cops simply transfer from one police department to another, the president directs the attorney general to create or adopt a database that will enable police departments to share information about fully adjudicated cases against officers who engage in excessive uses of force.

The database will track “terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force” as well as “instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force” with aggregated data being made available to the general public.

And again, the attorney general is directed to allocate grant funding by the Justice Department to “only those law enforcement agencies that submit” such data.

As for the myriad new issues that police confront on a daily basis, to which Barr alluded in Dallas, the executive order cites the need to “take actionable steps to safely and humanely care for those who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse in a manner that addresses such individuals’ needs and the needs of their communities.”

While promoting “the use of appropriate social services as the primary response to individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction,” the order recognizes that law enforcement officers often encounter such individuals and must be “properly trained for such encounters.”

Trump’s order tasks the attorney general and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to work together over the next 90 days to develop training and resources to support officers who encounter individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction. It instructs them to increase the capacity of social workers to work alongside law enforcement officers as part of new “co-responder programs” so that they arrive and together address situations in which people are in distress.

The order also directs the HHS secretary to conduct a survey of community support models that address mental health, homelessness, and addiction, and to submit a report within 90 days containing recommendations on how appropriated funds may be reallocated to support adoption of successful models, along with recommendations for additional funding, if needed.

Finally, the executive order tasks the attorney general with developing and proposing new legislation that, if enacted, would “enhance the tools and resources available to improve law enforcement practices and build community engagement.”

These would include grant programs to defray some costs associated with the new credentialing, information reporting, and co-responder/community support programs, as well as training and technical assistance pertaining to use-of-force policies and de-escalation techniques.

Such grant programs also might cover recruitment and retention of high-performing officers, confidential access to mental health services for law enforcement officers, and programs designed to improve relations between law enforcement agencies and their communities and to support nonprofit organizations that assist in the endeavor.

These measured but meaningful proposals are an excellent start and should receive broad bipartisan support in Congress and widespread adoption by law enforcement agencies.

If successfully implemented, these proposals should lead to greater accountability and transparency, increased trust between the police and the communities they serve, improved professionalism of police forces, and officer wellness.

The proposals also should result in more humane and safe treatment for those in distress who are homeless or suffering from the throes of addiction or a mental disorder and enter the criminal justice system as either perpetrators or victims.

This is welcome news in troubled times.

This commentary was modified shortly after publication to incorporate the Trump administration’s final language in the order.

COMMENTARY BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Anarchy in Downtown Seattle Not a ‘Festive Zone’

The Tyranny in the Left’s Goal of Outlawing ‘Hate Speech’

Who Will Bear Ultimate Cost of Rioting?


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Candidate Biden Suggests Police be Trained to Shoot ‘an Unarmed Person’ in the Leg

Unscripted Joe Biden, as we have all come to realize, is must-watch TV. When the presumptive Democrat Presidential candidate speaks off-the-cuff, his message regularly goes off the rails. We all anticipate Biden will say something oddconfusing, or even incomprehensible during interviews and live appearances, but we are often still shocked by what comes out of his mouth.

Even scripted Biden can be a curious misadventure.

On Monday, June 1, he upped the ante by not just saying something strange, but something potentially dangerous.

While addressing a crowd at the Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del., Biden suggested that law enforcement training could include “teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person, coming at him with a knife or something, to shoot him in the leg instead of the heart.”

First, it’s certainly odd to characterize someone as an “unarmed person” if they are “coming at (you) with a knife.”

Biden is very vocal about his desire to ban most semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps he is unaware that rifles of any kind are used less frequently in homicides than knives or blunt objects.

We have long known that Biden simply does not like guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, as he appears to not trust them to be responsible or remain law-abiding. But who knew that mistrust also applied to law enforcement? It’s certainly an odd position for someone who has been protected by armed government agents for decades.

And what about that suggestion to abandon over a century of firearms training to, when faced with a deadly threat, “coming at him…to shoot him in the leg…”?

Targeting center mass, is done to best ensure all rounds fired hit their intended target for the safety of all innocent parties involved and to stop the threat.

Sadly, candidate Biden seems to get much of his firearms education from Hollywood, where big-screen heroes regularly shoot with unachievable accuracy. If Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name character could fire his single action revolver from the hip, while on a horse, with pinpoint precision, surely those with more modern firearms and training could easily match this feat.

Much like Biden’s ideas about biometric firearms, though, life is not going to imitate art when it comes to the defensive use of firearms.

Even if it could, it still would not be advisable. The reality is that any time a gun is fired at another person, a lethal outcome is possible. A leg wound from being shot can be just as fatal as a wound to the body. A gun should therefore never be used in any circumstance other than one that would justify lethal force.

This rule reserves the use of a firearm for the most serious of encounters. Biden’s “leg shot” rule ironically could lead to more uses of firearms under the flawed assumption that the injured subject would eventually recover.

“Shooting at a person is deadly force regardless of what part of their body you aim at,” said Jason Johnson, the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon.

He went on to explain, “[Police are] trained to shoot center mass but there is no option to shoot somewhere else and have it not considered deadly force.”

Firearms training has been refined for decades, and when it comes to using lethal force to stop a violent threat, targeting the body is proven to be the best way to ensure striking the intended target, ending a lethal threat, and minimizing the chance of misses that endanger innocent third parties.

But this dangerous suggestion from Biden is nothing new, when it comes to the use of firearms. We could call it Chapter Two in his book of what not to do with a gun if you are concerned for your safety.

Chapter One involved the use of shotguns, and included two bits of advice that would likely land anyone who follows them in jail. First, in February 2013, Biden told women who wish to defend their home and loved ones from intruders to walk outside with a double barreled shotgun, and fire two blasts. He followed that up later in the same month by telling anyone who wants “to keep someone away from (their) house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

These suggestions are as preposterous, and dangerous, as telling anyone to “shoot [an attacker] in the leg.” Perhaps the best advice when it comes to defensive use of firearms would be to NEVER listen to Joe Biden.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Supreme Court Strikes Gun Ban From Ballot

Trends Don’t Lie: Americans Exercise Their Rights

RELATED VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1272627125938532352

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gorsuch Helps Transform the Supreme Court Into the Supreme Legislature on LGBT Rights

In what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called one of the most “brazen abuse[s]” of the Supreme Court’s authority, a six-member majority of the court led by Justice Neil Gorsuch has rewritten Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of “sex.”

Why bother trying to pass the proposed Equality Act when you can get the justices to make law for you?

Title VII prohibits an employer from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Gorsuch—joined by the four liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts—decided that employment decisions that take any account of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entail discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.


The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>


In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was combined with two other cases, Gorsuch wrote that the straightforward application of the terms in Title VII, according to their ordinary public meaning at the time of its enactment, means that an employer violates the law when it intentionally fires an individual based in part on sex.

In a logical and legal leap, Gorsuch then argued that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, since those concepts are related to sex.

Thus, Gorsuch reasoned, it means the employer is treating individuals differently because of their sex. An employer cannot escape liability by showing that it treats men and women comparably as groups. The employer has violated the law even if it subjects all male and female homosexual and transgender employees to the same treatment.

Gorsuch dismissed as irrelevant the historical fact that none of the legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would have ever expected or contemplated that Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination on the basis of sex would apply to a man hired by a funeral home who then told his new employer, the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Home, that he planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”

That was one of the three cases before the court. That provision of the 1964 law was intended to stop the blatant employment discrimination rampant against women at that time.

The majority opinion by Gorsuch upending more than five decades of prior precedents was only 33 pages long. Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a blistering dissent in which he said that “there is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He pointed out that the majority’s claim that it is “merely enforcing the terms of the statute” is “preposterous.”

As Alito undisputedly says, “if every single American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.”

The majority tries to “pass off its decision” as just an application of the term “sex” in Title VII, claiming it is applying the textualism championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But according to Alito, that claim and the majority’s opinion “is like a pirate ship.” He added:

It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Alito said that the majority’s “arrogance” is “breathtaking,” since “there is not a shred of evidence that any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Title VII was enacted.”

Neither “sexual orientation,” nor “gender identity” appear on the list of five specified grounds for discrimination in Title VII, and the majority’s “argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong,” he wrote.  The terms “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” are “different concepts,” and neither of the two latter terms are “tied to either of the biological sexes.”

Alito is, of course, entirely correct, as one of us pointed out in a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

And, of course, Congress knew that “sex” didn’t include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Alito recalled that there have been numerous bills introduced in Congress over the past 45 years to amend the law and add those terms, but they all failed.

The majority is “usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches” of government and has taken the latest congressional bill on this topic and “issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also filed a dissenting opinion, in which he wrote that “this case boils down to one fundamental question:  Who decides?”

The issue is whether Title VII “should be expanded to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation,” he wrote, adding that responsibility “belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”

Kavanaugh lauded the “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit” of the gay and lesbian community for working “hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law.”  But, he added, under separation of powers, “it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII.”

Alito made it clear that the “updating desire to which the Court succumbs no doubt rises from humane and generous impulses.” But the “authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is.”

In their dissents, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh got it right, and the majority got it wrong. The word “sex”— still today as when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964—refers to our biological reality as male or female. It doesn’t refer to our sexual orientations or malleable gender identities as some see it.

If those terms were contained within Title VII, there would have been no need for Congress to repeatedly try to amend the law to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

In an act of judicial activism, a majority of the Supreme Court has simply legislated from the bench and amended the statute itself.

Congress has not legislated such an outcome, and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation without the consent of the governed.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.Twitter: .

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Harry Potter’ author explains why trans demands are bogus

The author of the Harry Potter series has ignited a firestorm on Twitter over her ‘transphobic’ views.


Skepticism about allowing teenagers to transition to a different gender came from an unexpected source lastweek: J.K. Rowling, the author of the fabulously successful Harry Potter series. She had been provoked by a Twitterstorm over her tweet mocking a Devex headline, “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. “People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people,” she wrote. “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” She published an extraordinarly clear and informative open letter on her website, which we are republishing here.

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

What are TERFs?

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

Protecting young women

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018,  American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people.  The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

Misogyny ascendant

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

On a personal note

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity.  I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

Defying trans activists

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

This letter, originally titled “J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues“, has been republished from her website.

COLUMN BY

J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling is best-known as the author of the bestselling Harry Potter series of seven books, published between 1997 and 2007. The enduringly popular adventures of Harry, Ron and Hermione have gone on… More by J.K. Rowling

RELATED VIDEO: CBC Kids calls JK Rowling “transphobic” in show for ages 6+: Andrew Lawton with Ezra Levant

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MARYLAND: Another Hate Crime Hoax Exposed, Racist Graffiti Writer is Black

“[I]t’s hang a [n-word] month.” – Jerome Kevin Jackson

You might see this news in a few local news reports and here at the The College Fix, but it won’t be news trumpeted by the New York Times or CNN!

(Hat tip: Aileen)

CONFIRMED: Vandal behind racist graffiti at Salisbury University … is black

Salisbury University experienced massive racial unrest after a series of racist graffiti was discovered on campus over the course of the 2019-20 school year.

The public, Maryland-based university canceled classes for a “day of healing” and hired a new associate vice president for diversity and inclusion at a cost of $140,000 annually.

Authorities have had a suspect since February but refused comment to The College Fix on details. Turns out, the vandal is black.

The man who is scheduled to plead guilty to the vandalism has been charged under a hate-crime statute. His motives for the defacement remain unclear at this time.

Jerome Kevin Jackson, 54, is set to plead guilty June 12 to maliciously defacing school property “while exhibiting racial animosity,”according to a news release from the Office of the State’s Attorney for Wicomico County published Monday.

The release states Jackson is responsible for four incidents of “racist and sometimes gender discriminatory graffiti” on campus during the fall semester as well as another incident in February 2020 in which the words “it’s hang a [n-word] month” were scrawled on a wall with black marker.

Here are 50 campus hate-crime hoaxes The College Fix has covered since 2012

Required viewing for Mr. Jackson and his ilk!

A day or so ago reader Linda sent me this incredible Youtube video in which an African American man lectures his fellow blacks (and whites).

Maybe a judge could use messages like this when sentencing people like Mr. Jackson.

LOL! Make him watch this a few dozen times! (In addition to whatever other punishment he must get).

Watch! It is just under ten minutes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Immigration Slows due to Chinese Virus, Federal Employees at USCIS Could be Furloughed

Providence Pervert Charged with Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Counterterrorism Expert Says ‘The Goal Of Antifa Is To Overthrow The Government’

Kyle Shideler, director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, spoke with the Daily Caller’s Samantha Renck about the history of Antifa, Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and more.

“You probably started hearing the term ‘Antifa’ maybe back in the trouble with Berkeley and some of the cancellations that were taking place of conservative speakers on college campuses,” Shideler said. “But that’s only about two, three years ago.”

The reality of Antifa, as Shideler explained, dates back to the 1930s.

“We traced it in the article all the way back to 1932 when the Communist Party of Germany founds Anti-Fascist Action.”

Shideler expressed concerns for the amount of support Antifa receives from local and state officials.

“What is distressing is the level of support that Antifa does get from local and state officials from some of these more radical areas,” Shideler said. “We’ve seen these in Portland, we’re seeing it in Seattle with the mayor and some of the city council members who are essentially supporting this insurrection.”

Shideler emphasized that the ongoing situation in Seattle can and will also be used as fuel for future movements.

“Even though this won’t last, this zone is not going to last, the people who took this action are learning lessons, they are creating propaganda, they are motivating new followers, and we’re going to see all of those things happen again.”

Shideler talked more about the situation in Seattle, the future of Antifa, its threat to the country and more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

We Have Correspondents On The Ground In Seattle’s No Cop Zone. Here’s What It Looks Like

Tom Cotton: NYT Column Calling To Abolish Police ‘Puts Lives In Danger’

‘Should Send Shivers Down The Spine Of Every American’: Tim Scott Rips CHAZ, Defund Police Efforts

‘Don’t Mess With The Alamo,’ Texas Land Commissioner George P Bush Warns Protesters

Weekend At CHAZ: A Commune Block Party Punctuated With Brief Power Struggles, Infighting

EXCLUSIVE: ‘I’ve Been Scared Every Day’: Seattle Resident Speaks Out About Life On The Border Of CHAZ

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Finalizing Executive Order, Says He Wants To Increase Police Funding


President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration was finalizing an executive order focusing on police reform amid widespread protests over the death of George Floyd.

The statement, which came during a roundtable with law enforcement officers in Dallas, addressed police funding, social workers and de-escalation tactics, Politico reported. It also came amid demonstrations and rioting over Floyd, who died May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for about nine minutes, video showed.

“We’re working to finalize an executive order that will encourage police departments nationwide to meet the most current professional standards for the use of force, including tactics for de-escalation,” Trump said. “Also, we’ll encourage pilot programs that allow social workers to join certain law enforcement officers so that they work together.”

Trump emphasized his support for law enforcement and said he wanted to increase funding toward it.

“We’re not defunding the police. If anything we’re going the other route. We’re going to make sure our police are well trained, perfectly trained, they have the best equipment,” Trump said.

The announcement came amid growing calls to defund police departments nationwide or even abolish police altogether.

The president also announced Thursday preliminary plans to build “safety and opportunity and dignity” in communities of color by increasing access to capital for minority-owned small businesses and by confronting the health care disparities that have long existed.

COLUMN BY

ANDREW TRUNSKY

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLES:

Charles Barkley Rips Movement To Defund The Police

Poll: 55% Of Democrats Support Defunding The Police

Chicago Police Union President Says He Won’t Tolerate Officers Kneeling With Protesters

Two-Thirds Of Americans Don’t Want To Defund Police: Poll

‘Absolute Monarchy’: Catholic Priests, Jewish Congregants Sue Cuomo, De Blasio Over Alleged Double Standards On Worship,…

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

We Must Never Forget the 100 Million Victims of Communism

You know you’re doing the right thing when your enemies condemn you.

When President George W. Bush 13 years ago on June 12, 2007, dedicated a U.S. memorial in Washington, D.C., to the more than 100 million victims of communism, both the Chinese communists and the Russian communists immediately attacked the president and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington dismissed the memorial as “an attempt to defame China.” Gennady Zyuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party, called the memorial “clumsy propaganda” intended to divert the world’s attention “from the true bloody crimes of U.S. imperialism.”

Tellingly, what neither the Chinese communists nor the Russian communist boss tried to do was to deny the bloody crimes of communist imperialism. After stating that “we the living have a solemn obligation to the victims to acknowledge their sacrifice and honor their memory,” Bush listed some of communism’s victims:

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

They include innocent Ukrainians starved to death in Stalin’s Great Famine or Russians killed in Stalin’s purges; Lithuanians and Latvians and Estonians loaded on cattle cars and deported to Arctic death camps of Soviet communism.

They include Chinese killed in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; Cambodians slain in Pol Pot’s Killing Fields; East Germans shot attempting to scale the Berlin Wall in order to make it to freedom; Poles massacred in the Katyn Forest and Ethiopians slaughtered in the “Red Terror”; Miskito Indians murdered by Nicaragua’s Sandinista dictatorship; and Cuban balseros who drowned escaping tyranny.

Since the dedication of the memorial 13 years ago, national leaders from around the world have visited the site to lay a wreath and offer a silent prayer. Ethnic groups from every continent have held rallies and candlelight ceremonies for their fallen brethren.

Each June, representatives of more than 20 foreign embassies and dozens of anti-communist organizations have participated in a memorial service, recommitting themselves to the words at the base of the memorial: “To the Freedom and Independence of all Captive Peoples and Nations.”

All freedom-loving people are encouraged to join a virtual memorial ceremony at 9 a.m. on Friday, June 12, at victimsofcommunism.org.

Each June brings the world closer to that day when communism finally will be dumped on the ash heap of history, and freedom will take its place in the five countries that still groan under communist dictatorship—defame China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba.

How can we be sure that day will come? We remember the words of the East German communist boss Erich Honecker, who boasted in January 1989 that the Berlin Wall would stand for at least another 100 years. Before the year was out, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and Honecker was under house arrest.

Each June, those in attendance at the Victims of Communism Memorial ceremony pledge that never again will they allow so evil a tyranny to enslave peoples and nations.

They hear the voices of the fallen crying out, “Remember us,” and vow they will never forget them.

COMMENTARY BY

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.” Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.