This land of such dear souls‚ this dear dear land‚ Dear for her reputation through the world‚ Is now leased out‚ I die pronouncing it‚ Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England‚ bound in with the triumphant sea‚ Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune‚ is now bound in with shame‚ With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England‚ that was wont to conquer others‚ Hath made a shameful conquest of itself. — William Shakespeare‚ Richard II All appreciators of great literature and history have a unique bond with the small island between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea‚ which provided outsized contributions to both. Chief among them is our blessed country‚ which like the British motherland is also being undone by domestic rot and feckless leadership‚ though the United Kingdom took far longer to reach the precipice‚ two thousand years rather than two hundred. The UK also has something the U.S. lacks: an unbroken human link to its origin‚ the Monarchy. And while we may rightly applaud this contrast as the whole point of America‚ the British Crown proved its worth last week with a graceful video from one of its members‚ Catherine (Kate) Middleton‚ the Princess of Wales. England’s in name only Conservative Party … faces a well-deserved electoral “bloodbath” by the even worse Labor Party. I became a devout anglophile and pseudo-monarchist when I read one of my first books‚ The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood‚ by Howard Pyle. To us boys in the century before the internet‚ Robin Hood was the ultimate hero‚ a romantic survivalist outlaw leader who fought evildoers and government tyranny yet never forgot his loyalty to king (Richard I “the Lionheart‚” 1157-1199) and country. We didn’t have a king‚ but something about fidelity to a noble ruler struck a chord in us. Much like identifying with beautiful princesses did for girls‚ as Walt Disney richly discovered long before the company he built betrayed his vision of them. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Midway in the Culture War) My boyhood love for Pyle’s book led me to his second most famous work‚ The Story of King Arthur and His Knights: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Here was a portal to an entire universe and connected ideals: chivalry‚ honor‚ romance‚ Christianity‚ and civilization versus darkness‚ both substantial and supernatural. King Arthur’s Camelot — essentially England — was an oasis of law and order which‚ by manly derring-do‚ kept the surrounding‚ relentless barbarism at bay. Until Camelot too‚ like Britain and potentially America‚ fell to internal corruption and immorality‚ in its case the queen’s affair with a champion knight. But from despair arose eternal spiritual hope in the knights’ Quest for the Holy Grail‚ the Chalice in which Christ turned wine into his Holy Blood at the Last Supper. Perhaps not by coincidence‚ this sacred ritual and event were celebrated just last weekend on Palm Sunday. In any case‚ Christianity plays a fundamental role in the literature about King Arthur‚ from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Anonymous‚ late 14th Century) through Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (1485) and Alfred‚ Lord Tennyson’s poetic Idylls of the King (1859-1885). Unsurprisingly‚ most modern interpretations of Arthurian legend on page (The Once and Future King [1938] by T. H. White‚ The Crystal Cave [1970] by Mary Stewart)‚ stage (­Camelot)‚ and screen (Knights of the Round Table [1953]‚ Prince Valiant [1954]‚ Camelot [1967]‚ Excalibur [1981]‚ First Knight (1995)‚ Merlin [TV series 2008-2012]) diminish or disappear the Christianity. An exception is Stephen R. Lawhead’s superb The Pendragon Cycle (Taliesin‚ Merlin‚ Arthur‚ Pendragon‚ Grail‚ Avalon) being given the rare reverential adaptation by Daily Wire Entertainment and set to premiere this fall on Dailywire.com. But the reason for the religious reduction in new versions of Britain’s heroic epic is obvious. The cultural overlords despise Christianity as an obstacle to their progressivism. They prefer their fantasy on the pagan side‚ such as Game of Thrones and TV’s woke anti-Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. So young people will have nothing to grasp onto during the current national deconstruction‚ like we did Robin Hood and King Arthur‚ then later Sherlock Holmes‚ Gunga Din‚ the Charge of the Light Brigade‚ The Prisoner of Zenda‚ Simon Templar‚ and James Bond — Fleming’s and Connery’s Bond‚ not the asexual mope Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig made of him. They won’t even have the Church of England‚ the country’s spiritual glue for five centuries‚ now a collapsing house of cards instead of God. Earlier this month‚ Church leaders urged wealthy donors to raise one-billion pounds to “address past wrongs of slavery.” (READ MORE: When Rightist Eyes Are Smiling) That the Church was a dominant force in making England one of the first nations to end slavery with the “Abolition of Slavery Act” (1833)‚ and throughout its vast empire‚ means nothing to the liberal activist fools now running it. Take Archdeacon of Liverpool Ven Miranda Threlfall-Holmes‚ who recently posted this unifying message on X: “I went to a conference on whiteness last autumn. It was very good‚ very interesting and made me realise: whiteness is to race as patriarchy is to gender. So yes‚ let’s have anti-whiteness‚ and let’s smash the patriarchy.” Threlfall-Holmes and her peers doubtless have little appreciation for the wonderful Christian hymn‚ Amazing Grace‚ by slave-ship captain turned abolitionist Anglican clergyman John Newton. Because no committee for slavery reparations will match the power of its lyrics: “Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear/And Grace my fears relieved/How precious did that Grace appear‚ the hour I first believed.” Yet today‚ as England’s in name only Conservative Party — overwhelmingly voted in by the people to do the opposite of what they’re doing‚ like letting in three times the number of immigrants this year as in 2020‚ the majority of them Muslims — faces a well-deserved electoral “bloodbath” by the even worse Labor Party. The grace and class of a beauteous princess announcing her cancer diagnosis is a small comfort reminiscent of an olden time. The post England Reconstructs Camelot appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Friday‚ Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution sponsored by the United States that was intended to impose an immediate cease fire in the Gaza Strip‚ effectively forcing an end to Israel’s war against the Hamas terrorists before Hamas is defeated. Because we are no longer its reliable ally‚ Israel is alone in the world. Russia and China must have greatly enjoyed their vetoes because the irony of them is deep‚ dark‚ and disturbing. The resolution they vetoed proved redundantly that Biden and his minions have changed our policy toward Israel so that we are no longer its reliable ally. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden Does Nothing for Americans Held Abroad) For over six decades the U.S. has been vetoing UNSEC resolutions in defense of Israel‚ usually sponsored by one or more Arab states and supported by Russia and China. UNSEC resolutions are supposed to have the force and effect of international law but they are routinely ignored by the dictators‚ despots‚ rogues‚ and terrorists that comprise much of the UN’s membership. The UN General Assembly‚ in which the U.S. has no veto‚ has routinely castigated Israel for many imaginary flaws. The capstone was an UNGA resolution‚ passed in November 1975‚ that defined Zionism as racism. It wasn’t until 1991 that the “Zionism is racism” resolution was revoked. Israel is the UN’s most-criticized country. Since 1975 we have vetoed more than four-dozen UNSEC resolutions bashing Israel. In 2014 alone the U.S. vetoed 21 such resolutions. (Only four UNSEC resolutions that year criticized other countries.) Why did Russia and China veto the U.S. resolution? It’s puzzling because they want to see Israel defeated even more than Biden does. They probably got a laugh out of it and didn’t want to give Biden even that small a success. In past years‚ when grownups were in charge‚ we had rules about how we would either vote for or veto UNSEC resolutions. John Negroponte was Bush 43’s UN ambassador from 2001-2004. Negroponte came up with rules for considering anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. His five rules said that a resolution condemning Israel also had to include a robust condemnation of terrorism and incitement to it‚ explicit condemnation of terrorist organizations such as Hamas‚ and a call for dismantling of the infrastructure that supports terror operations. Needless to say‚ last Friday’s resolution offered by the United States — read Biden and Blinken — followed none of the Negroponte rules. Instead‚ the Biden-Blinken resolution: (1) called for an immediate and sustained cease-fire; (2) urged all parties to leave unhindered aid flowing to Gaza; (3) said that a further Israeli offensive into Rafah‚ in southern Gaza‚ would result in more harm to and displacement of civilians; and (4) rejected Israel’s plan to create a buffer zone between it and Gaza. The resolution didn’t demand release of Hamas’s hostages‚ among whom are five Americans and the bodies of at least three who died in Hamas captivity. Israel has often said that it would agree to a cease-fire if the hostages are released. Hamas refuses to release them. (READ MORE: The Coming Ramadan War) Israel wants a buffer zone between it and Gaza to help detect and prevent more attacks like October 7‚ but Biden and Blinken don’t want such a barrier to future attacks. The Biden-Blinken resolution has many roots. The first is the Michigan Democratic primary vote in which one hundred thousand voters checked “uncommitted” instead of voting for Biden. That has panicked the Biden team. The second is the fact that Biden has been insisting — going back to the October 7 attack that killed 1‚200 Israelis and took more than 240 hostages — that Israel not invade the Gaza Strip at all. Israel delayed its response for weeks over Biden’s objections. Third is the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused to be pushed around by Biden. As I have written elsewhere‚ Netanyahu has insisted that Hamas cannot be destroyed unless Israel scours it from Rafah and southern Gaza. He has said that opposing Israel’s coming campaign in and around Rafah is tantamount to opposing Israel’s victory in the war Hamas started. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called that statement “nonsense‚” which is comprehensively wrong. His thinking — and Blinken’s and Biden’s — is why Israel can no longer regard us as a reliable ally. That thinking was reflected in Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s March 14 speech in which he called on Israeli voters to throw Netanyahu out of office. Because we are no longer its reliable ally‚ Israel is alone in the world. No other nation will stand up for the only democracy in the Middle East. Don’t forget the fact that Israel is highly dependent on the U.S. for military aid‚ especially the “Iron Dome” missile system that protects Israeli civilians and military from missiles launched from Gaza or Lebanon. Iranian-backed Hizballah almost regularly fires from Lebanon aimed at Israeli cities and towns. Even the Iranian-backed Houthis of Yemen launched a missile at Israel a few days ago. Hamas could achieve the extended cease-fire that Biden and Blinken want simply by releasing the hostages it still holds. But they won’t. So what can Israel do? A few days ago‚ Blinken made yet another trip to Israel to pressure Netanyahu to not defeat the Hamas battalions in Gaza. But Netanyahu won’t bend. He told Blinken‚ “There is no way for us to defeat Hamas without going into Rafah and eliminating the rest of the battalions there.” He added‚ “I told him that I hope we will do it with the support of the USA‚ but if we have to‚ we will do it alone.” And they might. About six weeks ago‚ Biden issued a memo threatening all U.S. allies with a cutoff of military aid unless they proved — within forty-five days — that they were compliant with all U.S. laws on humanitarian treatment of others. Israel‚ at last report‚ had not responded to Biden’s demand which was clearly aimed at them. (READ MORE: Biden Blackmails Israel) Donald Trump was an avid supporter of Israel. But the November election — and his possible victory and January 2025 inauguration  — is a long way off. Israel will have to go it alone until then. If Biden is reelected‚ Israel will be very much alone‚ isolated and friendless. The post Dark Irony at the UN appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Monday‚ May 25‚ 2020‚ George Floyd‚ a man with a significant criminal record including a five-year sentence for an armed home invasion‚ entered a convenience store in downtown Minneapolis and made a purchase. The clerk at Cup Foods called the police after examining the bill. He believed it to be a counterfeit twenty. Two Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) rookie officers — Alex Kueng‚ black‚ and Thomas Lane‚ white — responded to the call. Chauvin’s prosecution and trial are emblematic of a criminal justice system gone awry. Floyd was in the driver’s seat of a borrowed car when Lane tapped on the window and told Floyd he was under arrest. Floyd’s reaction to the officers‚ as seen on body cam footage‚ is bizarre. Agitated and confused‚ he failed to cooperate. After exiting his car‚ Floyd refused to be put in the squad car. Derek Chauvin‚ senior MPD officer in the area‚ arrived after the arrest effort began and took charge. Floyd continued to resist and cry out‚ claiming he couldn’t breathe. Unable to get the muscular Floyd into the squad car‚ the officers yielded to Floyd’s request to lie down. After Floyd was down on the pavement‚ he kicked Lane. To control the still struggling Floyd‚ Chauvin used a prone restraint known as the Maximal Restraint Technique (MRT)‚ an approved MPD protocol for resisting arrestees and prisoners. Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s left shoulder and neck. Lane restrained Floyd’s back‚ and Keung his legs. Chauvin’s partner‚ Tou Thao‚ shielded the officers from a hostile crowd. (READ MORE from Jack Cashill: How George Floyd Actually Died) Thinking Floyd subject to excited delirium‚ a diagnosis well known by law enforcement‚ the officers called for an ambulance within a minute of initiating the prone restraint. About eight minutes after the restraint was applied‚ Floyd suddenly grew quiet. He had‚ in fact‚ died.  Resuscitation measures on scene and at the ER were unsuccessful. Sudden death makes cause of death analysis much less complicated because there are limited causes of non-traumatic sudden death. All suggest cardiac arrest.  An autopsy was performed Tuesday morning‚ May 26‚ by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner‚ Dr. Andrew Baker. In a deposition taken later on a different lawsuit‚ Assistant Prosecutor Amy Sweasy testified to her interaction that day with Baker. I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd. He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation. He said to me‚ “Amy‚ what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?” And then he said‚ ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’” On Friday‚ May 29‚ prosecutors elaborated on the cause of death as originally reported by Dr. Baker in posting their initial complaint against Derek Chauvin. According to the complaint‚ “The full report of the [medical examiner] is pending but the [medical examiner] has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Dr. John Dunn contacted journalist Jack Cashill early on in this matter with his concerns about the information in the autopsy. Dunn had read the autopsy report and concluded that Floyd died of natural causes‚ most likely cardiac arrest from severe heart disease‚ exertion‚ and excitement. The methamphetamine in his system could have made his heart more irritable to add to the risk of cardiac arrest.  The fentanyl in his system was not a factor‚ since the blood level of 11 nanograms was not lethal for a frequent user and he was not acting like a fentanyl overdose‚ which causes lethargy‚ unconsciousness and slowed breathing‚ then death from respiratory failure. Dunn was alarmed by Baker’s final autopsy report‚ released a week after the original.  During that week‚ among other outrages‚ rioters set fire to the MPD Third Precinct house‚ totaling it. Baker could feel the heat and not just from the arson. The prosecutors presented that testimony‚ knowing it to be false‚ and Judge Cahill allowed it. An exhibit released later by Judge Peter Cahill memorialized a November 2020 meeting held by state prosecutors with Dr. Roger Mitchell‚ the District of Columbia medical examiner. In the meeting‚ Mitchell boasted of how he compelled Baker to change his initial autopsy report to include death from neck compression‚ a homicide. If Baker balked‚ Mitchell promised to denounce him in a Washington Post op-ed. Baker yielded. Under threat from Mitchell‚ he titled his revised autopsy report‚ “Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual‚ restraint‚ and neck compression (Italics added). Excited Delirium Excited delirium‚ originally known as Bell’s Mania‚ had a more than 50 percent death rate before medications became available to sedate extremely agitated psychiatric patients. The deaths come from dehydration‚ hyperthermia‚ organ failure‚ and heart problems‚ including death from cardiac arrest. (READ MORE: Chauvin Did Not Murder George Floyd) In 2008 the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) commissioned 18 physician experts to draft a monograph on excited delirium. It was well received in 2009 when released. In June 2021‚ the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates  publicly condemned the excited delirium diagnosis in sudden death cases like Floyd’s because it might exonerate police officers. The action by the AMA was no surprise since the AMA Board of Trustees had already declared  its support for critical race theory‚ DEI‚ and anti-police campaigns. Under pressure from social justice warriors in the medical community‚ ACEP removed the excited delirium monograph from its website. Sensing trouble to come‚ Dr. Dunn downloaded a copy before activists made it disappear. ‘Can’t breathe’ Analyzed It is well known that panic/anxiety attacks cause a shortness of breath‚ often to the point of fainting. Mr. Floyd was noisy and talkative to the end. Although anxious‚ he was breathing well and not apparently short of breath. The prosecution’s medical experts claimed that the officers impaired Floyd’s breathing by putting pressure on his shoulder and neck‚ but they were silent on the obvious‚ namely that the muscle for breathing‚ the diaphragm‚ is inside the lower chest. It is protected by the ribs. That’s why the restraint is safe and not lethal. The Restraint Demonstrations  In June 2021 Dr. Dunn made a video‚ available on Rumble‚ testing the prosecution thesis. For ten minutes‚ a man roughly the weight of Derek Chauvin restrained a man roughly the weight of George Floyd using the same technique Chauvin used on Floyd. Dunn repeated the experiment two more times in December 2023 and January 2024. In these tests Dunn‚ slightly heavier than Chauvin‚ played Floyd’s role with a man about the same height and weight as Floyd‚ 6 feet 4 inches and 220 pounds‚ played the role of Chauvin. In all three demonstrations‚ the restraint proved harmless. The oxygen levels of the man restrained remained in the normal range — above 95 percent saturation — throughout the entire ten minute exercise. Witness Coercion The proper conclusion on the cause of death was right there in the autopsy’s findings. The state prosecutors knew about Mitchell’s threats and Baker’s original impression of no homicide. Baker testified in the trial of April 2021 that no one coerced him. The prosecutors presented that testimony‚ knowing it to be false‚ and Judge Cahill allowed it. (RELATED: Why the Media Are Mum About White Flight 2.0) Here are the critical and pertinent elements of the autopsy report that show there was no homicide.  Read the whole report for extraordinary detail to support these findings. Final Diagnoses Forty-six-year-old man who became unresponsive while being restrained by law enforcement officers; Blunt force injuries Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the forehead‚ face‚ and upper lip Mucosal injuries of the lips Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the shoulders‚ hands‚ elbows‚ and legs   Natural diseases Arteriosclerotic heart disease‚ multifocal‚ severe Hypertensive heart disease Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular dilatation Clinical history of hypertension Left pelvic tumor (incidental‚ see microscopic description) III. No life-threatening injuries identified No facial‚ oral mucosal‚ or conjunctival petechiae No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures No scalp soft tissue‚ skull‚ or brain injuries No chest wall soft tissue injuries‚ rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR)‚ vertebral column injuries‚ or visceral injuries Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck‚ shoulders‚ back‚ flanks‚ and buttocks negative for occult trauma. BRAIN (10-12): Sections of hippocampus‚ cerebellum‚ cerebral cortex‚ and midbrain show the expected microscopic architecture‚ without hypoxic-ischemic‚ reactive‚ neoplastic‚ or inflammatory changes. Autopsy Report Analyzed The “paraganglioma” cited above‚ a tumor found in Mr. Floyd’s pelvis and described by Dr. Baker as “incidental‚” was potentially lethal. Tumors of this nature produce adrenaline and noradrenaline. Dr. William Schaetzel‚ a recently retired pathologist‚ has argued that the tumor was more than “incidental.” ”When the tumor goes off‚” he told Cashill‚ “that is what’s called a catecholamine crisis. It might as well be a bomb.” The secreting paraganglioma could very well have caused a cardiac arrest and sudden death. The proper thing for Dr. Baker to have done was to test the metanephrine level in the post mortem. Intentionally or otherwise‚ Baker failed to run that test. “Petechiae” are small blood blisters on the surfaces. As Baker noted‚ they were not present. This‚ too‚ is strong evidence that Chauvin and his colleagues did not “murder” George Floyd. The fact that the brain exam showed no evidence of “hypoxic-ischemic‚ reactive‚ neoplastic‚ or inflammatory changes” also refutes the claim of the prosecution and their experts that Mr. Floyd died of oxygen deprivation caused by the police restraint. “He had very severe heart disease‚” Baker said of Floyd during Chauvin’s trial. For a variety of reasons‚ Baker failed to discover precisely what triggered Floyd’s fatal cardiac arrest. Instead‚ he allowed the prosecutors to blame four innocent police officers for murdering a man who died a natural death brought on by his own criminal resistance. Prosecutorial and Judicial Ethics Judges and Prosecutors are officers of the court‚ obligated under oath to provide justice in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Advancing a case that lacks adequate evidence is unethical prosecutorial abuse. Concealing exculpatory evidence is beyond abusive. In a timeless 1940 lecture‚ U.S Attorney General and later Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson laid out the ethical standards for prosecutors. The prosecutor has more control over life‚ liberty‚ and reputation than any other person in America…. If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases‚ it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get‚ rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted…. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society‚ when he acts from malice or other base motives‚ he is one of the worst. One parting shot completed Attorney General Mr. Jackson’s lecture — a gift for the ages: The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman….The citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness‚ who seeks truth and not victims‚ who serves the law and not factional purposes‚ and who approaches his task with humility. Judge Peter Cahill‚ who presided over the trials and sentencing of the four officers‚ allowed the ever threatening mobs to dictate justice. He knew better. More than a century earlier‚ Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously condemned mob justice in his dissent of the 1913 Atlanta murder conviction of Leo Frank‚ asserting eloquently: Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury. We are not speaking of mere disorder‚ or mere irregularities in procedure‚ but of a case where the processes of justice are actually subverted. Derek Chauvin and his colleagues did not murder George Floyd. Chauvin’s prosecution and trial are emblematic of a criminal justice system gone awry — and not just in Minneapolis. Dr. Dunn has been a physician for 50 years‚ board certified in emergency medicine‚ and an attorney for 40 years‚ board certified in legal medicine. A frequent author/lecturer on medical and legal matters‚ Dr. Dunn co-edited a major textbook in emergency medicine‚ Principles and Practice of Emergency Medicine‚ and authored chapters on medical testimony and medical forensics for Legal Medicine‚ a textbook published by the American College of Legal Medicine‚ a professional association of physician attorneys.  The post George Floyd Revisited Part I: Derek Chauvin Was Wrongfully Convicted appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In editing Dr. John Dunn’s report on the death of George Floyd‚ I became aware of the 30‚000 words journalist Radley Balko has invested in attacking Derek Chauvin’s defenders. Balko spent nine years at the Washington Post. He has some clout. He has been using that clout — and his extensive knowledge of the case — to intimidate those who have just begun to open their eyes to the injustice visited on former Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officers Derek Chauvin‚ Thomas Lane‚ Alex Keung‚ and Tuo Thau. This bullying needs to stop. In the way of background‚ I have been tracking this case since the moment the Floyd death videos started circulating. What piqued my interest was this: I watched a police officer apply the same restraint just weeks before the Floyd incident. During that ghostly Covid spring of 2020 I was at my office in Kansas City’s counter-cultural district when I heard someone howling. People howl a lot here. (READ MORE from Jack Cashill: The Un-American Inequality of Jan. 6 ‘Justice’) When I went down to the street to investigate‚ I saw a male officer kneeling on the neck of a large‚ squirming woman. My first thought? “Thank God‚ she’s white.” This restraint looks awful‚ but it works. Not wanting to be ghoulish‚ I chose not to record the incident. In retrospect‚ I should have. After about ten or so minutes‚ back up arrived. The officers slipped a Hannibal-the-Cannibal mask over the woman’s head and took her away‚ still squalling and squirming. Balko shocked me‚ however‚ by omitting … the single most critical feature of the entire trial‚ namely the corrupting influence of Dr. Roger Mitchell. As long as the only people defending the MPD officers were “far-right bomb throwers and conspiracy theorists” — Balko puts Tucker Carlson in this category — Balko was not alarmed. What triggered him was an article by Coleman Hughes‚ a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Worse‚ Hughes’s article appeared in the very respectable “Free Press‚” hosted by New York Times apostate Bari Weiss. Although Liz Collin’s film The Fall of Minneapolis had a much broader reach‚ Balko does not see Collin as a peer. Throughout his three (and counting) articles on the “retconning of George Floyd” — whatever that means — he dismisses Collin and her collaborator J.C. Chaix contemptuously. As to their motive‚ sneers Balko‚ “They want to make it easier for police to kill people without consequence.” The “first claim” Balko sets out to demolish was one offered by both Collin and Hughes‚ namely that when Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s back and neck for nine minutes‚ “it could not have been criminal assault because the Minneapolis Police Department has trained its officers —  including Chauvin — to use that very technique.” Says Balko of this claim‚ “It’s all nonsense.” Balko makes the case that Chauvin misapplied the maximum restraint technique‚ or MRT. As explained in the MPD training manual the technique is recommended as a prelude to putting the perp in the “hobble” position. Once hobbled‚ the perp is to be rolled on to his side. Balko admits that the wording in the MPD manual “does leave just a smidge of ambiguity” about whether the perp should be rolled on to his side if not put in the hobble position. Assuming Balko is correct‚ his pharisaical parsing of the MPD manual ignores the larger injustice. Four MPD officers are in prison as a result of what would seem to be MPD’s ineffective training. At trial‚ the MPD Police Chief Medaria Arradondo and the MPD Inspector Katie Blackwell were both shown a still from the bystander’s perspective of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd. When asked whether that position was “a trained technique” used by the MPD‚ both answered firmly in the negative. Added Blackwell in disgust‚ “I don’t know what kind of improvised position that is.” Balko knows these officials were shading the truth. He admits‚ “[t]he entire reason the MPD taught the MRT — the only reason it was included in the MPD manual — was to incapacitate a suspect‚ but only long enough for police to administer a hobble.” Had the jurors been able to see an image from a 2018 training slide or one in the 2014 MPD manual‚ they would have understood the deception. Those images replicate the restraint that Chauvin used. Judge Peter Cahill disallowed jurors from seeing these images under the dubious pretext that there was no proof Chauvin was trained in this technique. Less than a week out the Police Academy‚ rookie officer Thomas Lane was likely better trained than his senior officer. Twice Lane suggested to Chauvin that Floyd be rolled on his side. Balko acknowledges as much but makes no objection to Lane’s 30-month sentence for “depriving George Floyd Jr.‚ of his constitutional rights.” What would prosecutors have had Lane do? Wrestle Chauvin away from Floyd for his failure to see through the ambiguities of the MPD manual? Balko argues with some justification that Collin conflates the transitional MRT Chauvin used with the more comprehensive hobble technique. But to suggest that this phase of the MRT was some kind of rogue improvisation is simply wrong. Chauvin may well have avoided the extra step of the hobble because he expected the EMTs to be on scene momentarily. He did not know that they had gone to the wrong address. Had the EMTs arrived on time‚ Floyd would still be dead‚ but the officers would not be in prison. Balko knows this. He just doesn’t care to mention it. His dissection of the MRT argument‚ however disingenuous‚ represents Balko’s strongest moment. (READ MORE: Racism‚ Revenge and Ruin: The Hellish Forces of Barack Obama) The “second claim” Balko presumes to swat down is that “Floyd’s official autopsy found that he died of a heart attack brought on by cardiovascular disease and drug use. Therefore‚ Chauvin could not have been responsible for Floyd’s death.” As Dr. Dunn makes clear in the accompanying article‚ Floyd did die of a heart attack. Given the seriousness of his heart condition‚ Floyd could have fallen over dead shoveling snow. The meth may have been an aggravating factor. The fentanyl was not. For the last two years Dr. Dunn has been trying to dissuade his allies from blaming Floyd’s death on fentanyl. Balko cites with approval the claim of the pulmonologist who testified for the state that “even a perfectly healthy person would likely have died” under the conditions Floyd faced. As Dr. Dunn proved through demonstration‚ this is hogwash. “I did the 220 pound guy on top of me‚ at 165 pounds‚ previous broken neck in 2020‚ 77 years old‚ just to emphasize that there is no way the prone restraint is harmful‚ even with a really big man’s left leg on my neck‚” Dr. Dunn reports. “If you look at the demo I made‚” Dunn continues‚ “the guy put his leg on my neck. I did the arrangement to make sure the guy’s knee was on my neck and he had his weight forward. I ordered him to make sure he was putting his weight on my neck — didn’t know at the time that Balko would try to rehab the prosecution/trial misconduct with his mumbo jumbo about the misapplication of the restraint.” Balko calls his opponents “wildly dishonest” for omitting certain information‚ most of which was irrelevant. Balko shocked me‚ however‚ by omitting what is arguably the single most critical feature of the entire trial‚ namely the corrupting influence of Dr. Roger Mitchell. Dr. Dunn mentions this‚ but I will elaborate. Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker initially reported that there were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation in Floyd’s death. He added “neck compression” only in his final report. About this there is no dispute. Balko shows no curiosity as to why Baker made this change. Had he sought the truth‚ he would have had to ditch this entire voluminous exercise in ill-spirited pettifoggery. He preserves the high ground‚ however‚ by ignoring the threat level Baker faced and failing to mention Mitchell at all. In May 2021‚ the attorneys for Tuo Thao filed a motion that should have been headline news. His attorneys asked the court “for a factual finding that the testimony of Dr. Baker was directly and indirectly coerced by the State and its agents.” As the motion notes‚ Dr. Roger Mitchell‚ then medical examiner of Washington‚ D.C.‚ managed to read Baker’s preliminary finding that “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” An exhibit released later by Judge Cahill suggested the reason for those changes. The exhibit discussed a November 2020 meeting held by state prosecutors with Mitchell. The state’s summary of its conference with Mitchell reads as follows‚ “When the preliminary result came out via the criminal complaint‚ Mitchell found the statement was bizarre…. Mitchell was reading and said this is not right. So Mitchell called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer.” This call appears to have taken place on Friday‚ May 29‚ the day Baker’s preliminary findings were made public. The summary continues‚ “Baker said that he didn’t think the neck compression played a part and that he didn’t find petechiae. Mitchell said but you know you can not have petechiae and still have asphyxia and can still have neck compression.” Wanting to get out from under the mounting pressure‚ Baker asked Mitchell if he were going to come to Minneapolis and do a second exam. Said Mitchell‚ “I am just calling to lend you support and if you need support‚ let me know.” That “support” took a diabolical turn. The summary continues‚ “Mitchell thought about it more that weekend‚ and was going to release an op-ed…. Mitchell called Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker’s findings.” The politically wired Mitchell — he was also deputy mayor of Washington — was planning to send the op-ed to the Washington Post‚ a move that would wreck Baker’s career and possibly endanger his life. (READ MORE: The Semantic Burden of Speaking While White) That was Mitchell’s most flagrant abuse of power‚ but not his only one. In daring to testify on Chauvin’s behalf‚ the intrepid Dr. David Fowler provoked Mitchell’s wrath. While the trial was still in progress‚ Mitchell enlisted four hundred physicians to sign an open letter to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. The signers demanded an “immediate investigation” into Fowler’s practices during the seventeen years he spent as the State of Maryland’s chief medical examiner. Weeks later‚ feeling the heat‚ Frosh launched a detailed review of more than one hundred autopsies during Fowler’s tenure. Writes the willfully blind Balko‚ “Fowler’s testimony at Floyd’s trial was so dubious that Maryland’s attorney general ordered an audit of the autopsies Fowler had done on people who died in police custody.” No mention of Mitchell. As the state summary notes‚ “In this conversation‚ Mitchell said‚ you don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong.” Mitchell gave Baker an ultimatum. “Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.” The state summary ends matter-of-factly‚ “[Mitchell] talked to Dr. Baker before his diagnosis were final.” The motion by Tao adds this damning note‚ “The final autopsy findings included neck compression. Id. This was contrary to Dr. Baker’s conclusion before speaking with Dr. Mitchell twice.” None of this information found its way into the trial. The trial environment was impossibly fraught. Judge Cahill denied Chauvin a change of venue and refused to sequester the jury even after a nearby police shooting further heightened the tension. Every day‚ jurors entered a courthouse surrounded by barricades and barbed wire and patrolled by National Guard. After a use-of-force expert testified on Chauvin’s behalf‚ justice lovers left a pig’s head on what they thought was his doorstep. The jurors had every reason to fear a non-guilty verdict‚ Cahill and Baker even more so. Minneapolis had already been burned down once. Balko mentions none of this. Balko insists that medical examiners “need to be shielded from factors that could unduly influence their conclusions.” That much is agreed. He preserves the high ground‚ however‚ by ignoring the threat level Baker faced and failing to mention Mitchell at all. That failure is pure media malpractice. To accuse others of “knowingly spreading false information” and then burying crucial evidence makes him not the crusader for justice he pretends to be‚ but the perfect propagandist for the state. Jack Cashill’s most recent book‚ Untenable: The True Story of White Ethic Flight from America’s Cities‚ is available in all formats.   The post George Floyd Revisited Part II: The Regime Attacks Chauvin Defenders appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Does anyone else recall a U.S. military intervention launched to feeding starving civilians that ended with dead American soldiers littering the streets of a distant city?  That would be Mogadishu in 1993‚ where U.S. forces landed to ensure that food reached needy civilians‚ but withdrew after a calamitoU.S. battle with Somali warlords.  Mission creep is an ever-present hazard to American policy makers.  The deployment of Marines to protect the U.S. airbase in Da Nang grew into over half a million U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam three years later. A special forces-led effort to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan became a decades-long effort to defend the country from a resurgent Taliban. Now our military will construct a pier to allow the delivery of food to the civilians of Gaza‚ which will of course require American soldiers to secure the facility and ensure that Hamas operatives do not pilfer aid when it comes ashore for their own purposes. Hamas could force the U.S. to pick its poison: protect them from the IDF‚ or face military humiliation in the streets of Gaza. Has the White HoU.S.e thought this through? Take a moment to game this out from the perspective of Hamas‚ currently fighting for its life against the IDF from its last enclaves in Rafah.  An American military presence on the ground in Gaza can serve some useful purposes for them.  Food aid must be delivered from this new pier‚ most likely by Hamas-adjacent operatives who will need U.S. protection and supervision if it is to get where it is needed. Exactly how is the U.S. military going to distinguish between distributions of aid to genuine Palestinian civilians and Hamas fighters? As Israel has learned‚ this is difficult if not impossible. U.S. forces ostensibly protecting food deliveries could become the ideal human shields against IDF attacks‚ allowing Hamas to reclaim their role as the intermediary distributing Western aid to Gaza civilians. This role will permit them to reestablish their political legitimacy with Gaza’s needy population‚ who do know Hamas operatives when they see them. (READ MORE from Karl Pfefferkorn: The Heartbreak of the Brideshead Republicans) A more malign aim might be to suck the U.S. into the ongoing war.  The U.S. military could become the de facto protector of Gazans from the IDF as the security operations needed to deliver aid from port to civilians spreads like a web to encompass much of the territory. U.S. soldiers accompanying critical aid deliveries will expand the safe zones for Hamas operations across Gaza. Do we wish to midwife a resurrected Hamas in Gaza behind the shield of U.S. troops?  If not‚ then a U.S. military presence becomes useful to Hamas in more incendiary ways. At a moment of Hamas’ choosing‚ U.S. forces in Gaza become targets for attack.  The U.S. will be faced with a choice: retaliate and allow Hamas to maneuver U.S. into open cooperation with the IDF against the entire Arab world‚ or skulk out of the place and abandon Gaza to whatever post-war plans the Netanyahu government imposes on the place. (READ MORE: Israel: Unifying Around the Center) Hamas could force the U.S. to pick its poison: protect them from the IDF‚ or face military humiliation in the streets of Gaza. Neither of these are attractive outcomes for the U.S.‚ which is already facing the task of shoring up its credibility in the wake of the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul.  This simple pier constructed for admirable humanitarian reasons could be the first step toward a Hamas revival under de facto U.S. protection‚ or another Mogadishu-type humiliation for the U.S. Have we considered how we can prevent mission creep after the arrival of U.S. forces in Gaza grants multiple dangerous options to Hamas? Not likely. The Biden White House has made a short-term calculation based on its wavering support in states it needs to win in November. The cost of this calculation could be immense: the revival of Hamas‚ armed with new powers to divide the U.S. from Israel‚ or defeat in another gruesome street battle against a well-armed and media-savvy Muslim population. Is this worth Michigan’s 15 electoral votes?     The post The US and Gaza Mission Creep appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Donald Trump called our NATO allies “delinquent” and mused on how he might encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” with allies that don’t spend the required 2 percent of GDP on defense‚ the foreign policy blob pilloried him. Shouts of “strategically illiterate‚” came pouring in from diverse swaths of the political spectrum. Certainly‚ the portion about encouraging Russian attacks on the West was over-the-top‚ if only perhaps meant to scare the allies (namely Germany‚ Italy‚ Canada‚ Spain‚ and the Low Countries) into taking their obligations seriously. But Trump’s basic point on feeble allies — that a failure to contribute to the alliance justifies its abandonment by the dominant nation if it is that nation’s interest — finds historical support. The British decision to seek separate peace proved deft. During the 1702-1713 War of Spanish Succession‚ Britain‚ Holland‚ Prussia‚ and the Austrian Empire formed a Grand Alliance against France to prevent Philip V‚ the grandson of French king Louis XIV‚ from taking the Spanish throne. A united French/Spanish super-state with vast combined colonial possessions would dramatically alter the balance of power in Europe‚ an outcome the allies found worth preventing with arms. England’s Duke of Marlborough and the Austrian Empire’s Eugene of Savoy defeated France’s land forces in multiple campaigns. But these victories came at such a cost in lives and treasure that‚ by 1710‚ the English public clamored for peace and a resumption of normal commerce. After Louis XIV had withdrawn from Spain‚ England’s main strategic aim — to keep France and Spain separate kingdoms — looked achievable in negotiations. (READ MORE: NATO’s Bleak Future) So‚ England began secret deliberations to reach a separate peace with France‚ in violation of Britain’s obligation to fight alongside its allies (particularly Holland‚ a state which shared a long border with France and had a formidable navy but weak land forces). When an informal truce in 1712 removed the English troops from the battlefields of Europe‚ Holland especially howled in protest of the treachery. According to Alfred Mahan’s classic The Influence of Sea Power Upon History‚ “The remonstrances of Holland were met by the reply that since 1707‚ the Dutch had not furnished more than one third their quota of ships‚ and taking the war through‚ not over one half.” Further‚ the British Parliament complained that Holland “has been greatly deficient every year in proportion to what your Majesty hath furnished … Hence your Majesty hath been obliged to supply those deficiencies with additional reinforcements of your own ships” (emphasis mine). To again quote Mahan’s classic Influence of Sea Power: “To these complaints‚ the Dutch envoy to England could only reply that Holland was not in a condition to fulfill her compacts.” The Dutch‚ having borne the brunt of the French land assault on her border towns and harbors for years‚ had a point. The war impoverished Holland and deprived her of the shipping trade on which she previously enjoyed a near-monopoly. Today‚ Germany and Western Europe have no such excuse. The post-recession era has been one long peacetime economic expansion‚ largely due to the American security umbrella. Nations much poorer than Germany or Canada‚ such as Poland‚ Lithuania‚ Latvia‚ Romania‚ and Hungary (in other words‚ the NATO member states closest to Russia) manage to hit or even radically exceed the 2 percent threshold (Poland spends the most at 3.9 percent of GDP‚ exceeding America’s 3.5 percent). If our allies are this unserious about their own defense‚ it should be expected that America will care only in proportion to its own strategic interest‚ rather than treating Article V of the NATO treaty‚ which obliges all parties to mutual defense if one ally is attacked‚ as ironclad. The British justified their abandonment of the alliance and the negotiation of a separate peace amenable to its own strategic interests by the fact that Holland was deficient‚ or in Trumpian language‚ “delinquent” on its furnishment of weapons to the alliance. The Dutch retort that they were unable did not nullify the deficiency. The British decision to seek separate peace proved deft. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht‚ on which Britain’s diplomats had a three-year head start‚ granted Britain both Gibraltar and Port Mahon in the Mediterranean‚ a monopoly on trade with Spain’s New World colonies‚ and a guarantee that France and Spain would remain separate kingdoms. This despite the fact that France (an absolutist Catholic monarchy) and Britain (an emerging Protestant parliamentary democracy)‚ by 1713‚ had generations of archrivalry and represented diametrically opposed worldviews. (READ MORE: Trump: The New Eisenhower on NATO) Whether America would benefit from a similar “separate peace” with Russia‚ diametrically opposed to American values though it is‚ or any other NATO foe is debatable. I remain skeptical of such claims‚ especially with more easterly allies meeting their obligations. However‚ the principle is important to recognize regardless of the current strategic situation: for unserious allies‚ as for unserious romantic liaisons‚ the United States reserves the right to go Dutch.   The post Trump ‘Goes Dutch’ on NATO Allies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The world is starved for virtuous‚ courageous leaders and problem solvers. For those perplexed by the current state of politics‚ Groucho Marx had the answer. Groucho said‚ “Politics is the art of looking for trouble‚ finding it everywhere‚ diagnosing it incorrectly‚ and applying the wrong remedies.” Today‚ amidst modernity‚ leadership has been replaced with consensus‚ collaboration‚ and cowardice. Most individuals succumb to the status quo‚ even if they are miserable because it is easier or more comfortable. Great leaders are different. Great leaders are thinkers who create opportunities for thousands and millions of individuals. But they also face obstacles. (READ MORE from Bob Luddy: Calvin Coolidge: Freedom Works Best) Leaders with ideas will immediately be met by blockers. The blockers will do everything possible to kill your ideas. Nonetheless‚ leaders are force multipliers. That means that leaders bring energy and ideas‚ which increase outcomes and purpose. Napoleon stated‚ “Freedom is nothing without opportunity.” Virtuous leaders are truth seekers that create opportunities. Ronald Reagan was one such leader. He is universally loved today but was opposed by many in his lifetime. In 1987‚ Reagan uttered this famous line at the Brandenburg gate in Germany‚ “Mr. Gorbachev‚ tear down this wall.” These powerful words inspired the unthinkable — the wall came down two years later. That was leadership. Reagan’s Cold War partner‚ Margaret Thatcher‚ had crucial words about leadership. She spoke of consensus‚ which she described this way: “Consensus: The process of abandoning of all beliefs‚ principles‚ values‚ and policies in search of something in which no one believes.” Today‚ amidst modernity‚ leadership has been replaced with consensus‚ collaboration‚ and cowardice.  That is to say‚ the Crowd‚ or the Mob. The mob attacks individual free speech and has seized education. Almost 30 years ago‚ Timur Kuran published Private Truths‚ Public Lies. Our freedom of speech is under siege. The problem is far worse now because we have an all-powerful government that controls public universities‚ medicine‚ K-12‚ news media‚ and continuously propagandizes the public. In public‚ many individuals stay silent or lie about their beliefs to avoid criticism. The truth is only shared behind closed doors with trusted friends and relatives. (READ MORE: Accreditation Is a Means of Government Control in Education) My friend Adrian Bejan‚ a Duke University professor and physicist‚ was told by his dad‚ who lived under Romanian communism‚ don’t walk away from the crowd‚ but RUN. In a white paper‚ Soren Kierkegaard states‚ “The Crowd is Untruth.” Anthony Rizzi‚ a physicist‚ and founder of the Institute for Advanced Physics‚ stated‚ the mob must be taught by logical thinkers. It must be countered‚ taught‚ by virtuous leaders. Alexandre Havard‚ author of Virtuous Leadership‚ wrote that bad leaders are not leaders at all; they are manipulators. “Leaders never resort to manipulation … Those who lack genuine authority and succumb to the temptation to exercise unalloyed power are leaders in name only. In fact‚ they are non-leaders (xix).” Jesus is our leader‚ who paid the ultimate price to change the world. Jesus taught us that the only great society is based in Christianity‚ which secular society is trying to destroy. Religious and economic freedom are under assault‚ but there is a cure. The cure is to have “Leading Citizens” — citizens who truly lead — as demonstrated by the likes of Saint Thomas More. That included men like our founders: Jefferson‚ Adams‚ Washington‚ and Franklin. They led as courageous and virtuous leaders and recognized and sought to protect God’s freedom. What we need are true leaders to once again counter the mob.       The post Wanted: Virtuous Leaders‚ Not the Mob appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

America Is Going To Be Targeted For A Massive Terrorist Attack … Will You be Ready?

Arizona Voters Deserve Opportunity to Stop Orwellian Vehicle Miles Tax

States Are Waking Up to the Medicaid Expansion Trap