Sometimes, it takes a rogue to catch a rogue... which may be why we have not heard from Boo Boo Barr since he got the cooties touch.
In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
established a Cyber-Digital Task Force within
the U.S. Department of Justice to evaluate the
impact that recent advances in technology
have had on law enforcement’s ability to
keep our citizens safe. Acknowledging the
many ways in which technological advances
“have enriched our lives and have driven our
economy,” the Attorney General also noted
that “the malign use of . . . technolog[y] harms
our government, victimizes consumers and
businesses, and endangers public safety and
national security.”
#maytheheavensfall
Attorney General William P. Barr announced today the release of “Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework,” a publication produced by the Attorney General’s Cyber-Digital Task Force. The Framework provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging threats and enforcement challenges associated with the increasing prevalence and use of cryptocurrency; details the important relationships that the Department of Justice has built with regulatory and enforcement partners both within the United States government and around the world; and outlines the Department’s response strategies.
“Cryptocurrency is a technology that could fundamentally transform how human beings interact, and how we organize society. Ensuring that use of this technology is safe, and does not imperil our public safety or our national security, is vitally important to America and its allies,” said Attorney General Barr. “I am grateful to the Cyber-Digital Task Force for producing this detailed report, which provides a cohesive, first-of-its kind framework for those seeking to understand federal enforcement priorities in this growing space.”
“At the FBI, we see first-hand the dangers posed when criminals bend the important technological promise of cryptocurrency to illicit ends," said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “As this Enforcement Framework describes, we see criminals using cryptocurrency to try to prevent us from 'following the money’ across a wide range of investigations, as well as to trade in illicit goods like criminal tools on the dark web. For example, the cyber criminals behind ransomware attacks often use cryptocurrency to try to hide their true identities when acquiring malware and infrastructure, and receiving ransom payments. The men and women of the FBI are constantly innovating to keep pace with the evolution of criminals' use of cryptocurrency."
“The United States has been enormously successful blocking terrorists, rogue regimes, and their supporters from funding their activity using traditional currencies,” said Task Force member John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. “As the Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework explains, we will adapt our strategy and tools to 21st century financing, including to combat the use of cryptocurrencies to evade enforcement and harm our national security.”
“Cryptocurrencies and distributed ledger technology present tremendous promise for the future, but it is critical that these important innovations follow the law. The Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework provides the public with important information intended to help them understand and comply with their obligations under the legal regimes that govern these new and fast-developing technologies,” said Task Force member Brian C. Rabbitt, the acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. “While the Department of Justice and its partners are committed to supporting the advancement of legitimate cryptocurrency technologies and uses, we will not hesitate to enforce the laws that govern these technologies when necessary to protect the public.”
Task Force member Beth A. Williams, who serves as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, lauded the release of the Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework: “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the public from current and emerging cyber threats, including those involving cryptocurrency and related technologies. This Framework reflects the Department’s extensive cooperation with domestic and international partners in ensuring that we are adequately addressing these challenges, to the benefit of lawful cryptocurrency users and the public at large.”
The Enforcement Framework opens with an introductory essay authored by the Task Force’s chair, Associate Deputy Attorney General Sujit Raman.
Then, in Part I, the Framework provides a detailed threat overview, cataloging the three categories into which most illicit uses of cryptocurrency typically fall: (1) financial transactions associated with the commission of crimes; (2) money laundering and the shielding of legitimate activity from tax, reporting, or other legal requirements; and (3) crimes, such as theft, directly implicating the cryptocurrency marketplace itself.
Part II explores the various legal and regulatory tools at the government’s disposal to confront the threats posed by cryptocurrency’s illicit uses, and highlights the strong and growing partnership between the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Commission, and agencies within the Department of the Treasury, among others, to enforce federal law in the cryptocurrency space.
Finally, the Enforcement Framework concludes in Part III with a discussion of the ongoing challenges the government faces in cryptocurrency enforcement—particularly with respect to business models (employed by certain cryptocurrency exchanges, platforms, kiosks, and casinos), and to activity (like “mixing” and “tumbling,” “chain hopping,” and certain instances of jurisdictional arbitrage) that may facilitate criminal activity.
The Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework is the second detailed report issued by the Attorney General’s Cyber-Digital Task Force, which was established in February 2018 to answer two basic questions: How is the Department of Justice responding to global cyber threats? And how can federal law enforcement accomplish its mission in this area more effectively? An earlier Task Force report, published in July 2018, canvassed a wide spectrum of cyber threats, ranging from transnational criminal enterprises’ sophisticated cyber-enabled schemes, to malign foreign influence operations, to efforts to compromise our nation’s critical infrastructure, and articulated the Department’s priorities in detecting, deterring, and disrupting cyber threats.
Additional Cyber-Digital Task Force members include Andrew E. Lelling, United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and two senior FBI executives. Components from across the Department contributed to the Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework’s drafting.
Yes, that is correct, race is the great American multi-trillion dollar industry.
Did anyone discuss this?
Nope.
Want to know why?
Because it would mean we would have to address christianity, and no one wants to do that, or do they?
What about islam and its colored stratified history of social standing in the U.S.?
Then, if you are going to talk about judism, which is a subject matter no one dares to broach, including the Ashkenazi, then, you are going to have to talk about the history and Detroit.
If the committee really wanted to address civil rights and civil liberties, do you not think that a good starting point would be to explain the laws and the educational curriculum in our institutions of learning?
Race is taught through what is now called Predictive Modeling Crap.
I got one even better.
How about the committee talk about the foreign operatives who have infiltrated our law enforcement & law making institutions with their #coloredrevolution fairies?
Perhaps, it has something to do with cloaking why a civil rights legacy is not afforded due process, but, hey, what do I know?
I know no one has yet to define race, but like I always say, "Just as a scientist uses science, a racist uses race."
Always remember, Black Lives Matter, because the acquisition of goods, or rather stealin' the children, land & vote, is only done in the name of the tax exempt god to maximize the best interests of the child these foreign corporations own, in pilfering a national treasury, in need of Medicaid cost reimbursement and Faith Based Funding.
What about black supremacy?
Yes, there is black supremacy and it is not very pretty because there seems to be a strong presence in the Child Welfare System, but Rashida made a mockery of this fact in her dismographied, cloaking tale of a "racial attack about two foster kids".
Since Rashida raised foster care, I thought this to be an opportune moment to introduce "Targeted Populations" no one wants to talk about, particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, considering this is her District, and all, ya know.
Gerrymandering: Congress makes the law, where police enforce the law, because those in power create the law, and we all know how political campaigns are funded.
This is about Parental Rights, where the resegregation is the latest financial grifting craze.
In light of the #coloredrevolution in its toppling of statutes honoring this nation's foundation, for representing the residuals of the peculiar institution, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Member, Louie Gohmert introduces a House Resolution to dismember the Democratic Party, and its other cohorts.
I know that if people are going to take down statutes representing the U.S. system of chattel law (a.k.a. slavery), well, then I demand taking down all legal decisions Pre-Emancipation Proclamation.
"Instead of canceling our culture and history, it’s time to #CancelDemocrats," Rep. Gohmert stated.
WASHINGTON D.C., DC — U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Tyler, is calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to ban Democrats and any "organization or political party that ever publicly supported slavery or the Confederate States of America.
The East Texas representative released the following statement through an opinion piece on Breitbart News on Thursday:
"Many on the left and their willing accomplices in the media would tell you otherwise, yet a cursory examination of our nation’s factual history and records proves the riots and chaos that have swept across our country in recent months stand as a devastating reminder of the racist policies and values held by the Democratic Party throughout much of its history.
Because of this, I introduced a privileged resolution in the House calling upon Congress to acknowledge the indecorous history of the Democratic Party. I asked that the Speaker of the House be instructed to ban any political organization or political party that ever publicly supported slavery or the Confederate States of America.
Since George Floyd’s tragic killing on May 25, the left which includes their “mainstream” Democrats, have resurrected their push to rid our nation of any entities, symbols, or reminders of the repugnant aspects of America’s past. Statues of American leaders have been torn down, defaced, and destroyed regardless of whether they were a party to improprieties or fought against them. The liberal mob is out in full force demanding that schools, sports teams, music artists, military installations, and even food products change their names if they have the slightest reference to any persons or events deemed unacceptable and offensive to the groupthink of the Marxist left.
Democrats argue that they are compelled to take these extreme actions because of “systemic racism” in America, all while conveniently pinning blame on Republicans and conservatives. This revisionist history tells a story that simply has no basis in historical fact. Their efforts are a veiled attempt to erase the Democratic Party’s own culpability, which for decades, if not centuries, was the ardent political advocate for discrimination and racism in our nation. For instance, when Republicans overwhelmingly supported the 14th and 15th Amendments, which recognized former slaves as citizens and granted them, as citizens, the right to vote, every single Democrat in Congress voted against their passage and, at times, blocked passage to the shame of the good done in our country’s history. Further, as Bruce Bartlett points out in his book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, for a century after Reconstruction, “The Jim Crow laws were enacted by Democrat legislatures and signed into law by Democrat governors. It could not have been otherwise, since there were virtually no Republicans in positions of authority in state governments in the South after the end of Reconstruction in 1877.” However, Democrats’ support for slavery and its subsequent support for institutionalized racism did not end in the 1800s. Elected in 1912, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson enacted policies to segregate the federal government. In a letter to editor Howard Bridgman who criticized President Wilson in his publication for his support of segregation, Democrat Wilson voiced support for his administration’s enactment of segregationist policies, stating, “I do approve of the segregation that is being attempted in several of the departments.” He went on to argue that segregation was “distinctly to the advantage” of blacks, which is, of course, an absurd claim steeped in blatant racism. When his administration began requiring that photographs be submitted with each employment application, which was used to discriminate against minority applicants, President Wilson, to whom many current Democrats either point with pride or say nothing, did nothing.
Nearly fifty years later, when Republicans steadfastly supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Democrats filibustered the bill for 75 calendar days. Republicans in Congress expended great effort to protect the basic rights promised to minorities in America by our nation’s founders. During his 14-hour speech filibustering the Civil Rights Act, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (a known KKK recruiter) proclaimed, “Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776. Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision.” This morally bankrupt view is what Democrats held for a majority of the Party’s history. That historically Democrat view is a total corruption of the Biblical view the Republican Party held, that although we may look different, we are absolutely equal in the view of our “Creator,” or “the Almighty” as Republican President Lincoln liked to say. On June 18th of this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the removal of portraits from the Capitol building honoring four previous Speakers of the House—all of whom were Democrats. That was a good start on the job that she should now finish if she is going to avoid blatant hypocrisy.
Throughout America’s history, Republicans have fought to repeal Jim Crow laws, desegregate schools, and promote racial equality in America. In recent years, Republicans, including President Trump, have continued this fight by working valiantly to lift Americans of all races out of poverty through pro-growth economic policies that have done more to help the plight of the impoverished than any administration. Prior to the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment rates for minorities were at record lows with employment at record highs.
Efforts by Democrats to destroy all public traces of their own history of supporting slavery, the Confederacy, and segregation in an attempt to shift blame onto Republicans must no longer go unchallenged. It is time for Democrats to play by their own rules, and accept the standards they have forced onto everyone else. They must divest themselves of their name that has denied so many the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Their recent actions demand nothing less. Instead of canceling our culture and history, it’s time to #CancelDemocrats."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF BUST OF ROGER BROOKE TANEY WITH BUST OF THURGOOD MARSHALL.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) While sitting in the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court issued the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision on March 6, 1857. Written by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, whose bust sits inside the entrance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the United States Capitol, this opinion declared that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. This decision further declared that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.
(2) Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s authorship of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the effects of which would only be overturned years later by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, renders a bust of his likeness unsuitable for the honor of display to the many visitors to the United States Capitol.
(3) As Frederick Douglass said of this decision in May 1857, “This infamous decision of the Slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court maintains that slaves are within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States, property; that slaves are property in the same sense that horses, sheep, and swine are property; that the old doctrine that slavery is a creature of local law is false; that the right of the slaveholder to his slave does not depend upon the local law, but is secured wherever the Constitution of the United States extends; that Congress has no right to prohibit slavery anywhere; that slavery may go in safety anywhere under the star-spangled banner; that colored persons of African descent have no rights that white men are bound to respect; that colored men of African descent are not and cannot be citizens of the United States.”.
(4) While the removal of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s bust from the United States Capitol does not relieve the Congress of the historical wrongs it committed to protect the institution of slavery, it expresses Congress’s recognition of one of the most notorious wrongs to have ever taken place in one of its rooms, that of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.
(b) Removal Of Bust Of Roger Brooke Taney.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall remove the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol.
(c) Replacement With Bust Of Thurgood Marshall.—
(1) OBTAINING BUST.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall enter into an agreement to obtain a bust of Thurgood Marshall, under such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee considers appropriate consistent with applicable law.
(2) PLACEMENT.—The Joint Committee on the Library shall place the bust obtained under paragraph (1) in the location in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol where the bust of Roger Brooke Taney was located prior to removal by the Architect of the Capitol under subsection (b).
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN STATUES AND BUST.
(a) Removal.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall remove the statue of Charles Brantley Aycock, the statue of John Caldwell Calhoun, the statue of James Paul Clarke, and the bust of John Cabell Breckinridge from any area of the United States Capitol which is accessible to the public.
(b) Storage Of Statues.—The Architect of the Capitol shall keep any statue and bust removed under subsection (a) in storage until the Architect and the State which provided the statue or bust arrange for the return of the statue or bust to the State.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR STATUES IN NATIONAL STATUARY HALL.
(a) Requirements.—Section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by inserting “(other than persons who served as an officer or voluntarily with the Confederate States of America or of the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States)” after “military services”.
(b) Statue Removal Procedures.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—
(A) IDENTIFICATION BY ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL.—The Architect of the Capitol shall identify all statues on display in the United States Capitol that do not meet the requirements of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131), as amended by subsection (a); and
(B) REMOVAL BY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY.—The Joint Committee on the Library shall arrange for the removal of each statue identified by the Architect of the Capitol under subparagraph (B) from the Capitol by not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) REMOVAL AND RETURN OF STATUES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the Architect of the Capitol shall arrange to transfer and deliver any statue that is removed under this subsection to the Smithsonian Institution.
(B) STORAGE OR DISPLAY OF STATUES.—The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution shall follow the policies and procedures of the Smithsonian Institution, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, regarding the storage and display of any statue transferred under subparagraph (A).
(C) STATE REQUESTS.—A statue provided for display by a State that is removed under this subsection shall be returned to the State, and the ownership of the statue transferred to the State, if the State so requests and agrees to pay any costs related to the transportation of the statue to the State.
(3) REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—A State that has a statue removed under this subsection shall be able to replace such statue in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) and section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132).
(4) AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to carry out this section, including the costs related to the removal, transfer, security, storage, and display of the statues described in paragraph (1)(A), of which—
(i) $2,000,000 shall be made available to the Architect of the Capitol; and
(ii) $3,000,000 shall be made available to the Smithsonian Institution.
(B) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts appropriated under subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
In addition to the amounts appropriated under section 3(b)(4), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, and any amounts so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 5. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled “Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation” for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2020.
Attest:
Clerk.
116th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 7573
AN ACT
To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.
This is absolutely amazing that I have been filled with awe in the ability of these Members of Congress, to stand on the House Floor, to so seductively distract the public in the fact that they, themselves, are all co-conspirators in the bleachbitting of history in the removal from office, the longest serving U.S. Congressman, who championed civil rights as his legacy, whilst denying him the civil right of due process.
Watch these people demonize history in their acts of sedition, as they advocate the end of racism, as they contemporaneously, and miraculously, omit , the name of the Chairman Emeritus of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee from the annals of history.
These are all vile creatures, for they know, that they know, that the heavens shall fall, in their acts of treachery.
If they are going to remove statutes of Judiciary, then, I suggest the opinions generated by these persons also be removed as case precedent, too.
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 13, 2020
Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Bass, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and Mr. Butterfield) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration
A BILL
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF BUST OF ROGER BROOKE TANEY WITH BUST OF THURGOOD MARSHALL.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) While sitting in the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court issued the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision on March 6, 1857. Written by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, whose bust sits inside the entrance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the United States Capitol, this opinion declared that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. This decision further declared that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.
(2) Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s authorship of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the effects of which would only be overturned years later by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, renders a bust of his likeness unsuitable for the honor of display to the many visitors to the United States Capitol.
(3) As Frederick Douglass said of this decision in May 1857, “This infamous decision of the Slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court maintains that slaves are within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States, property; that slaves are property in the same sense that horses, sheep, and swine are property; that the old doctrine that slavery is a creature of local law is false; that the right of the slaveholder to his slave does not depend upon the local law, but is secured wherever the Constitution of the United States extends; that Congress has no right to prohibit slavery anywhere; that slavery may go in safety anywhere under the star-spangled banner; that colored persons of African descent have no rights that white men are bound to respect; that colored men of African descent are not and cannot be citizens of the United States.”.
(4) While the removal of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s bust from the United States Capitol does not relieve the Congress of the historical wrongs it committed to protect the institution of slavery, it expresses Congress’s recognition of one of the most notorious wrongs to have ever taken place in one of its rooms, that of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.
(b) Removal Of Bust Of Roger Brooke Taney.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall remove the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol.
(c) Replacement With Bust Of Thurgood Marshall.—
(1) OBTAINING BUST.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall enter into an agreement to obtain a bust of Thurgood Marshall, under such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee considers appropriate consistent with applicable law.
(2) PLACEMENT.—The Joint Committee on the Library shall place the bust obtained under paragraph (1) in the location in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol where the bust of Roger Brooke Taney was located prior to removal by the Architect of the Capitol under subsection (b).
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN STATUES.
(a) Removal.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall remove the statue of Charles Brantley Aycock, the statute of John Caldwell Calhoun, and the statue of James Paul Clarke from any area of the United States Capitol which is accessible to the public.
(b) Storage Of Statues.—The Architect of the Capitol shall keep any statue removed under subsection (a) in storage until the Architect and the State which provided the statue arrange for the return of the statue to the State.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR STATUES IN NATIONAL STATUARY HALL.
(a) Requirements.—Section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by inserting “(other than persons who served as an officer or voluntarily with the Confederate States of America or of the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States)” after “military services”.
(b) Statue Removal Procedures.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Architect of the Capitol shall—
(A) identify all statues on display in the United States Capitol that do not meet the requirements of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131), as amended by subsection (a); and
(B) subject to the approval of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, arrange for the removal of each such statue from the Capitol by not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) REMOVAL AND RETURN OF STATUES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the Architect of the Capitol shall arrange to transfer and deliver any statue that is removed under this subsection to the Smithsonian Institution.
(B) STORAGE OR DISPLAY OF STATUES.—The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution shall follow the policies and procedures of the Smithsonian Institution, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, regarding the storage and display of any statue transferred under subparagraph (A).
(C) STATE REQUESTS.—A statue provided for display by a State that is removed under this subsection shall be returned to the State, and the ownership of the statue transferred to the State, if the State so requests and agrees to pay any costs related to the transportation of the statue to the State.
(3) REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—A State that has a statue removed under this subsection shall be able to replace such statue in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) and section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132).
(4) AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to carry out this section, including the costs related to the removal, transfer, security, storage, and display of the statues described in paragraph (1)(A), of which—
(i) $2,000,000 shall be made available to the Architect of the Capitol; and
(ii) $3,000,000 shall be made available to the Smithsonian Institution.
(B) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts appropriated under subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
In addition to the amounts appropriated under section 3(b)(4), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, and any amounts so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
"See, it is a spade.'
Presenting paperwork as an U.S. black owned
nonprofit while the foreign corporate mother
intently watches over her human chattel. Black Lives Matter, because it is how you maximize revenues.
Well, by golly, I must say, this particular slavific mission is the darnedest human asset forfeiture models I have seen yet.
Nope, I did not see this one coming.
Actually, I probably did because Saskia Thompson, of the Detroit Land Bank Authority, is form North Carolina and probably assisted in the construction of the test pilot model to see if it will fly in Detroit, with the endorsement of all our favorite afrocentristic drum beaters like the NAACP, NAN, and, let me not fail to mention the Congressional Black Caucus and all their financial stakeholders on their servers, to cover up what the did to my Sweetie.
No one wants to say his name.
So, money is going to be doled out to an authority, oh, let us just transpose this working model to Detroit for sake of a few jollies, and say the Detroit Land Bank Authority, who will not just assign a predictive modeling qualitative variable assignment label of one of the four humors, but theses pseudo-scientific determinations will be done, under the powers of a Public Private Partnership through an non-profit, the authority set up all by themselves, like those fake ass LLCs used to file quiet titles and take out fake mortgages.
Slavery was never abolished, just ask North Carolina.
Children are attached to the land as chattel, where, when they grow up, that land is still reconveyance powers of adverse possession.
So, if a foreign entity financially contributes to this 40 acre and a mule concept, must they register under FARA or will they have legally seized the land of the savages, filed a land patent, and leveraged it through a UCC lien as collateral in some other foreign state national treasury?
I find it absolutely fascinating that not one individual has whispered the name of my Sweetie.
I bet they are going to erect a statute to him in support of reparations, in a futile attempt to cover up all the gerrymandering activities to take over the United States, one city, one state at a time, because it all started in Detroit.
The measure passed by the City Council of Asheville, N.C., would provide funding to promote homeownership and business opportunities, but stopped short of stipulating direct payments.
As Americans debate how far the country should go to make amends for slavery and other racial injustices, a conversation reawakened by the killing of George Floyd, a city in North Carolina has taken the first step: It approved reparations for Black residents.
The city, Asheville, N.C., will provide funding to programs geared toward increasing homeownership and business and career opportunities for Black residents as part of a reparations initiative.
The measure was unanimously approved by the Asheville City Council on Tuesday night, but it stopped short of stipulating direct payments, which are usually associated with reparations. City leaders said their goal was to help create generational wealth for Black people, who have been hurt by income, educational and health care disparities.
The city, which is in Western North Carolina and has about 93,000 residents, also apologized for its participation in and sanctioning of slavery, as well as other historical injustices perpetrated against Black people, who make up about 12 percent of the city’s population.
Councilman Keith Young, who is one of two Black members on the Council, was one of the measure’s chief proponents. He said during the group’s meeting that systemic change was long overdue.
“Hundreds of years of Black blood spilled that basically fills the cup that we drink from today,” Mr. Young said.
The momentum for reparations was not limited to Asheville.
In Providence, R.I., the mayor signed an executive order on Wednesday to commence a “truth telling and reparations process,” The Providence Journal reported. In California, a bill creating a task force to develop reparation proposals for African-Americans was passed in the Assembly in June and was being considered by the Senate.
But some said the reparations initiative by city leaders in Asheville did not go far enough. And others panned it outright.
William A. Darity Jr., a professor of public policy at Duke University in Durham, N.C., wrote in an email on Wednesday night that he was “deeply skeptical about local or piecemeal actions to address various forms of racial inequality being labeled ‘reparations.’”
For reparations to be effective, he wrote, they would have to close the pretax racial wealth disparity in the United States, which would cost about $10 to $12 trillion — three to four times more than total state and municipal spending.
“So piecemeal reparations taken singly or collectively at those levels of government cannot meet the debt for American racial injustice,” he wrote.
As part of the resolution passed by the Council, city leaders in Asheville called on the state of North Carolina and the federal government to provide funding for reparations.
Councilwoman Sheneika Smith, who is also Black, said during the Council’s meeting that she had heard from residents who challenged the reparations measure.
“A lot of the feedback that we’ve gotten so far by email is that you know, ‘Why should we pay for what happened during slavery?’” Ms. Smith said. “And my pushback against that is reparations is more than restitution for what happened during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It is a dark evil sin of chattel slavery that is the root of all injustice and inequity that is at work in American life today.”
The developments in Asheville came after nationwide protests against police brutality and systemic racism, which were catalyzed by Mr. Floyd’s killing in late May. A Minneapolis police officer kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes in an episode that was captured on video by bystanders. The officer and three other officers involved were fired and charged in Mr. Floyd’s murder.
Amid the demonstrations, Confederate statues have been toppled by protesters or taken down by local governments, and lawmakers on all levels have introduced police reforms.
There has also been a renewed push by some members of Congress to create a commission to study the impact of slavery and to make recommendations for reparations.
Several times in American history, people have been compensated for historical injustices, from Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II to victims of police brutality in Chicago.
“It’s simply not enough to remove statutes,” Mr. Young said during the Council’s meeting. “Black people in this country are dealing with issues that are systemic in nature.”
Some said that the action by the Asheville City Council could set a precedent.
“I just hope that we will be, just maybe, a little spark that will really get this conversation not only going in Asheville but in North Carolina and across the country,” Councilwoman Gwen Wisler, who is also the city’s vice mayor, said before the group’s vote.
Let the people do the policing for the state, with bounty, in partnership with local law enforcement, as the original concept of policing was designed.
Ok, now that we have that out the way....
Will Baby Archie, the black
African American
qualify for a reparations check?
What does hearing fail to address?
Child welfare.
Why?
Because Child Protective Services is not recognized as police.
CPS is gerrymandering and SCOTUS said gerrymandering was constitutional.
That means slave law is still on the books.
Idiots.
No knock police warrants suck because CPS will use exigent circumstances doctrine to get the police to kick in your doors in the middle of the night, without warrant to save the children, because, according to the latest foreign university crap being promulgated, black people abuse their kids more, because poverty is child abuse.
The body of literature on this crap is vast, where people are still citing pre-Emancipation Proclamation legal doctrines to justify using race to make money.
City police consent agreements filed in the courts are fake because the administrators are private corporations, that are foreign funded, to keep using race as a reason to continue the oversight, so they can keep getting that check.
Just ask Kwame Kilpatrick after he is released from prison to tell his tale of Kroll's roll in the Detroit Police Department Consent Agreement and how that all worked out.
I have my own tale of that Consent Agreement and the Consent Agreement in Nancy Edmuds court, which is all infested with fake ass race crap to demonstrate their improvement and justifiable attorney fees billing practices.
Qualified immunity is used not just by police to kill someone, it is also used by Foster Care private contractors, who have foreign parents like Orchards Children's Services or Bethany Christian, or any other of the Catholic Charities trafficking tiny humans organizations.
Indemnification is a private issue with the private corporate shape shifter and their insurance companies, which means the States are not held liable, with that Eleventh Amendment Immunity, and the Right to Lie case, that was overturned to say that foster care workers cannot lie to snatch and sell a kid, that no one will enforce.
If the private, foreign foster care agency is busted killing a kid in its care, like Ricky Holland, or another little boy, who just kept coming back to life, it will just shutdown, restructure as a corporate shape shifter and rename itself like St. Vincent Sarah Fisher and Catholic Social Services did.
How should we deal with qualified immunity of law enforcement officers?
How about invoking that most beautiful Second Amendment to strip them of their right to keep and bear the arms of their respective well armed militia, to fall from the heavens, to be held accountable to the voting rights of a grand jury for prosecution on the land by the laws of the people.
There is no indemnification issues for the law enforcement agencies, the States or the U.S. because they have been defrocked, removed from office of the public trust, because they breached the children's trust called posterity.
Ok, now that I solved the issue of qualified immunity, allow us to move on.
Why is law enforcement systemically racist?
Because it was built on the peculiar institution that gets funded by race.
Think about a posse of bounty slave catchers, but instead of being on horseback, they are riding in squad cars.
Does this vision capture the fear many individuals of the darker persuasion have when rushed by law enforcement, weapons drawn and cocked?
How about this Child Protective Services gerrymandering example of structural, federal funded racism because it is still legal to procure and purvey tiny humans.
If a scientist uses science, then, a racist uses race.
Q: How the hell does one explain a statistical significance in a standard deviation of a race study?
A: When someone in your controlled population goes to the tanning booth, one too many times.
There are one drop laws on the books of the States where one is legally labeled as black, as noted on one's birth certificate, up to 1/78th which means you may be black in one state, but as soon as you cross a state line, you are no longer black in another state.
Homer of 1/8th of African descent, with blue eyes, blonde hair, and did not suntan very well.
The court said he was a product of an unfortunate union, which created the separate, yet equal legal doctrine to assign race because the case was about the right of association, under the First Amendment.
If you are labeled black, you have no right of association, which means the First Amendment failed, defaulting allow one to proceed to the Second Amendment to seek justice because the courts are dumb, because they use race as property ownership in class based animus decisions.
I would love to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the octroons just so I could get the court to opine, then, during the pendency of the case, go file in another circuit another class action case on behalf of quadroons, while transposing my race based legal model to even another circuit, on behalf of mullatos, just so I can castigate them, in the spirit of fuchsia, with their own case law, by moving all the courts for removal to SCOTUS by enjoining the cases.
Publicly popping judicial hubris like a pustular boil in legal arguments is far more satisfying than offering me a settlement check to shut me up.
Structural racism is chattel law because there is a hierarchy of human property ownership and it is funded through public and private institutions of belief and education.
Just look at child welfare literature.
No.
Wait.
Watch this video on race being a revenue maximizing fraud scheme.
It is called Parental Rights where, under that fake ass doctrine of Partus Sequitur Ventrum, where every time you label yourself with one of the bodily fluids, such as bile, you make public attestment that you are of the lower rung on the socioeconomic status ladder in society.
It is not that deep ~ race makes money ~ just ask Cory Booker.
Tiny human bondage is what the sophisticated populous most readily understands as slavery.
The Corporate Shape Shifters of those fake ass Public Private Partnerships like to leverage Social Impact Bonds in race based programs, because they make up their facts to base their evidence in Predictive Modeling Crap to garner the best interests of the child in corporate layering of financial leveraging instruments.
It is all public information.
Click the links or just do a search in the top right boolean on my blog to make your own novella to read as you talk a walk or just sun bathe at the beach, but do not get too suntanned or someone might label and assign you to the black variable.
Google works just as well.
The Bible was written to reinforce the institutions to maintain this hierarchy of human property ownership because it was funded by privateers so they could invade foreign lands to go a-stealin' the children, land & votes.
I like the Curse of the Sons of Ham tale in the Geneva Bible because our law is Noahidic and it says the darker you are, the more sin you have, which means you can be salvaged for your assets like children, land and vote, for the simple fact that the ones in power are the ones who write the laws.
The U.S. came up with the post-Emancipation Proclamation legal doctrine of human property ownership called gerrymandering, and I just went full circle on why the use of race is like using a horse and buggy to space mine on astroids.
Think about that for a few minutes to fully embrace my point of logic on race, piercing deep within your heart and soul.
So, just a reminder, until someone comes up with a quantitative tool of measurement that is universally accepted to publish a functioning, legal determination on how one came up with the human asset management categories of race beyond a ship's manifest, and who died and made someone else to be the king of labeling other humans to a monetary race assignment, as witnessed in federal funding of operations for targeted populations, I am going to call it all crap because people are inherently obsequious to religious institutions, because they are the ones pushing the race crap through the educational system.
We investigated links between police brutality and poor health outcomes among Blacks and identified five intersecting pathways: (1) fatal injuries that increase population-specific mortality rates; (2) adverse physiological responses that increase morbidity; (3) racist public reactions that cause stress; (4) arrests, incarcerations, and legal, medical, and funeral bills that cause financial strain; and (5) integrated oppressive structures that cause systematic disempowerment.
Public health scholars should champion efforts to implement surveillance of police brutality and press funders to support research to understand the experiences of people faced with police brutality. We must ask whether our own research, teaching, and service are intentionally antiracist and challenge the institutions we work in to ask the same.
To reduce racial health inequities, public health scholars must rigorously explore the relationship between police brutality and health, and advocate policies that address racist oppression.
Police brutality toward Blacks in the United States is not new. However, in the absence of a standard definition or good data, the extent of police brutality remains difficult to quantify. Historical evidence of public harming of Black bodies by police dates back at least to the era of slavery, when police disciplined Blacks and recaptured those who escaped enslavement.1 With current technology, police killing of Black people is recorded for public scrutiny and consumption. Access to these videos has led to unprecedented public discourse on what constitutes brutality, its connections to White supremacy, and the consequences for Black lives.
Certainly, excessive use of physical violence constitutes brutality. But as others have noted, brutality goes beyond physical force. It includes emotional and sexual violence as well as verbal assault and psychological intimidation.2–4 Bandes argues that the term “brutality” conveys more than police misconduct: “It is police conduct that is not merely mistaken, but taken in bad faith, with the intent to dehumanize and degrade its target.”2(p1276) We argue for these more expansive definitions of brutality but also believe that police actions that constitute brutality and that dehumanize and degrade occur even in the absence of conscious intent.
Blacks are significantly more likely to experience police brutality than are Whites, and whiteness affords protection against police use of force.5,6 Racially disparate use of force indicates that White supremacy—the systematic positive assessments of whiteness that go hand-in-hand with the devaluation of blackness7—permeates the US law enforcement system. White supremacy and structural racism (norms, laws, and policies that operate in institutions to limit life chances for communities of color)8 negatively affect health.4,8 We argue that police brutality is a social determinant of health, although it has not received sufficient attention from the public health community. To date, little empirical work has linked police brutality to poor health among populations who disproportionately experience brutality. To generate discourse and more research on this subject, we propose five intersecting mechanisms through which police brutality is linked to excess morbidity among Blacks at both the individual and the community level:
fatal injuries that increase population-specific mortality rates;
adverse physiological responses that increase morbidity;
racist public reactions that cause stress;
arrests, incarcerations, and legal, medical, and funeral bills that cause financial strain; and
integrated oppressive structures that cause systematic disempowerment.
A direct pathway between police brutality and health is through injury and death. The most comprehensive information about the connection between race and death during police encounters comes from data collected by a UK newspaper, The Guardian.9 Analysis of those data concluded that in 2015, “young Black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers.”6
For some victims of police brutality, death is not immediate but results from repeated physical injury while in police custody. In 2005, Dondi Johnson was arrested in Baltimore, Maryland, for public urination and placed in a police vehicle.10 Mr. Johnson entered the police vehicle in otherwise good health and left a quadriplegic, later dying from injuries sustained in the vehicle. Other high-profile cases of death as a result of maltreatment in police custody include Freddie Gray (Baltimore, MD, 2015) and Sandra Bland (Waller County, TX, 2015).10
Police killings increase Black-specific mortality rates. Even though only two percent of injuries from police interventions that require treatment in the emergency department or hospital result in death,11 Blacks are almost five times more likely than are Whites to have a police intervention-related injury.12 Little is known about the prevalence of nonlethal police violence that results in injury or disability. This is an area for further investigation.
Each episode of police brutality has emotional and physiological effects on individuals and communities. Witnessing or experiencing harassment, routine unwarranted searches, and deaths that go unpunished send a message to Black communities that their bodies are police property, disposable, and undeserving of dignity and justice.3 Videos such as that of Eric Garner (New York, NY, 2014) saying, “I can’t breathe” 11 times until he lost consciousness or that of Diamond Reynolds (the girlfriend of Philando Castile, who was killed by police in Falcon Heights, MN, 2016) stating to the police officer, “You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir” might elicit historical memories of lynching13 and can bring about collective anger, grief, and hopelessness. Defending the character of loved ones after the police have killed them can also be excruciating, eliciting more negative emotions. Although warranted, these emotions might be damaging to individual mental health and might elevate distress at the population level.14
Experiencing or witnessing police brutality, hearing stories of friends who have experienced brutality, and having to worry about becoming a victim are all stressors. When faced with a threat, the body produces hormones and other signals that turn on the systems that are necessary for survival in the short term.15 These changes include accelerated heart rate and increased respiratory rate. But when the threat becomes reoccurring and persistent—as is the case with police brutality—the survival process becomes dangerous and causes rapid wear and tear on body organs and elevated allostatic load.15 Deterioration of organs and systems caused by increased allostatic load occurs more frequently in Black populations and can lead to conditions such as diabetes, stroke, ulcers, cognitive impairment, autoimmune disorders, accelerated aging, and death.15,16
Black people often have the task of explaining to non-Black friends, co-workers, and strangers the connection between structural racism and the latest police shooting. This is a profoundly stressful process to undergo while grieving these deaths. One example of a racist public reaction that might cause stress is arguing that victims were somehow responsible for their own untimely murders—dissecting the guilt or innocence of the murdered persons versus understanding how White supremacy might have caused this. Another example is when protests that call for systemic change and accountability come under the scrutiny of the police, media, and other predominantly White institutions that judge the manner of protest as unacceptable.
Society’s predominant underreaction to incidents of police brutality can be stressful as well. Black women, men, and children wake up to another incident of a police killing on the morning news or on social media and are expected to go about their daily activities as though it does not affect them. But exposure to such videos can be traumatic and can affect well-being over the life course. In addition, it is painful for Black people to go to work and see business as usual while they are feeling devalued. The expectation of business as usual, the profound scrutiny of Black people’s reaction to police brutality, and the justification of police killings are potential sources of racial stress that we know to be directly and indirectly linked to poor health.17
Police brutality affects individual and community health through its toll on productivity and on the economy. In addition to job loss after incarceration, survivors of brutality may have to deal with disabilities resulting from police use of excessive force.11 Disability decreases productivity and the ability to accumulate financial resources.
Police brutality also affects the economic productivity of Black communities because loved ones take time away from paid work to grieve, plan and attend funerals, and organize protests. These events result from police brutality, and they take away resources that are already limited in Black communities as a result of structural racism. Financial strain and poverty affect the health of Blacks by limiting access to healthy food, exposing families to environmental hazards and poor housing conditions, and making it harder to access health services.18
The impact of police brutality is much broader than simply affecting the individuals who have experienced racialized violence. It is a constant reminder of the historic and current devaluing of Black lives.13 It sends a signal that there is little hope for justice. Excessive police force and inadequate prosecution of perpetrators might increase feelings of powerlessness in the Black community, diminishing perceptions of gains made by the civil rights movement.
Frequently, the only semblance of justice for victims of police brutality is to gain sympathizers in the court of public opinion. To do this, Black people seemingly have no other option than to make public the videos or photographs that show the private and last moments of loved ones’ lives. The perceived lack of justice can breed mistrust in law enforcement, further hurting the relationship between the police and Black communities. This might limit access to appropriate and necessary law enforcement services such as protection from violent crime and timely intervention during emergencies and disasters.
The impact of police brutality on the well-being of the Black community parallels the effects of the racism that exists in so many other aspects of everyday life: education, housing, employment, and health care.8,17 That Black people can be harassed and even killed by police is sadly not inconsistent with a system that gives some children, but not others, a high-quality education and that allows skin color to dictate employment opportunity or chances of dying from a preventable disease. Understanding how police brutality affects health requires seeing it both as the action of individual police officers and as part of a system of structural racism that operates to sustain White supremacy. A silver lining is that police brutality has given rise to movements, such as Black Lives Matter and Blacktivist, that resist systemic oppression of Blacks and advocate their rights to live freely and with dignity. However, the existence of these movements does not erase the feelings of powerlessness that affect well-being in Black communities.
At the forefront of public health are discussions of preventable causes of death, illness, and disease. Police brutality is highly preventable. As public health scholars, our agenda should include generating evidence of the causal relationship between police brutality and health inequities and seeking solutions.
A primary challenge in understanding the impact of police brutality on health is the lack of data. The fact that the best data to date come from newspapers such as The Guardian and The Washington Post is humbling. The National Violent Death Reporting System offers some estimates of deaths linked to police intervention, but not all states participate.19 Treating law enforcement–related deaths as we would notifiable conditions may be useful for identifying strategies to prevent mortality from police brutality.9 It is encouraging that recent Bureau of Justice Statistics efforts are focused on collecting more comprehensive data about arrest-related deaths.20 The Bureau of Justice Statistics and other federal agencies such as the National Center for Health Statistics should continue to invest in active and passive surveillance of police use of force, perhaps collaboratively, as an issue of fair policing, justice, and population health.
We must require national surveys that collect data about health and stress to include stressors that are pertinent to all individuals. Simple questions about how often respondents have been pulled over by police (Philando Castile was reportedly pulled over 49 times in 13 years), how often respondents are followed in stores, and so on can be powerful indicators of the types of everyday stressors that are the products of racism. We must also press funders to support qualitative research that seeks to understand the lived experiences of people faced with police brutality.
Ethnographies, case studies, and interviews might help us better understand the nature of police brutality, the context in which it is experienced, and how it affects well-being. Qualitative work has described how frequent adverse encounters have led Blacks to be negatively disposed toward police.21 Qualitative work might help us understand the extent to which poor health among Blacks is similarly grounded in everyday experiences of police intimidation, violence, and brutality.
The absence of perfect data is not an excuse for our neglect. Public health scholars can use publicly available data from sources such as the Police–Public Contact Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the New York City Stop and Frisk program. With these data they can begin documenting evidence by assessing whether people who report experiencing excessive use of force also belong to groups that are more likely to have negative health outcomes. One study using these data found higher rates of adverse health conditions such as high blood pressure among Blacks living in highly and inequitably policed areas regardless of their individual negative contact with police.22 More studies like this are needed. Partnerships with police departments may enable researchers to extract information from available event reports and summaries to generate useful data sets.
We will be limited in our ability to achieve health equity if all our measures of social inequality and determinants of health are racially coded. Public health has prided itself on its strong focus on social justice and equity. Public health readily examines consequences and by-products of racism such as poverty, lower health literacy, environmental pollutants, and lack of access to services among Blacks. We encourage scholars to purposefully go beyond these by-products and highlight racism and White supremacy as the issues that underlie racial health inequities.17 Black Lives Matter and similar movements play a role in exposing White supremacy and dismantling racism. It might be useful to explore the impact of these contemporary movements on the social, economic, and political empowerment and well-being of Black communities.
In addition to research, our work in advocacy and policy development should confront oppression in all its forms. At the 2016 Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, the American Public Health Association resolved to bring the issue of police violence to the forefront of public policy. Among several advocacy action steps in a policy statement, the American Public Health Association urges federal, state, and local governments to demilitarize police, decriminalize behaviors such as loitering and minor traffic violations, end racialized stop and frisk, and invest in addressing root causes of instability among Black communities.23 An understudied issue that also requires the attention of public health practitioners and health care workers is how police brutality might breed distrust in health care institutions, especially if institutional policies require health care workers to identify suspects of behaviors considered criminal.
Finally, we must ask ourselves if our own research, teaching, and service are fundamentally and unapologetically antiracist. For example, our schools and programs must include systematic ongoing training on skills for navigating racial bias (explicit and implicit) in and outside of the classroom. This requires critical self-consciousness so faculty and practitioners become comfortable with the language and concepts of antiracist praxis and naming racism and White supremacy.24 We must also hold our institutions, programs, and departments of health accountable to centering at the margins and deliberately taking the perspectives of marginalized groups.24,25
Confronting ourselves and the institutions that pay us is uncomfortable—for us, our collaborators, the administration, and our students. But discomfort can produce the best scholarship. We cannot champion efforts to eradicate racial health inequities without interrogating how our own scholarship might be influenced by structural racism and its consequences in the Black community.
Even though we focus on Blacks in this commentary, the pathways we have specified and the agenda we have proposed should be used to explore health inequities across a range of marginalized populations, including Native Americans and Latinos, who experience police brutality at alarmingly high rates. We must continue to assemble evidence that will move us closer to dismantling the systems that maintain excess morbidity and mortality, especially among historically oppressed groups.
We thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments. We acknowledge the suffering of families that have been directly affected by police brutality, a few of whose experiences we cite.
1. Blackmon DA. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans From the Civil War to World War II. New York, NY: Anchor; 2009. [Google Scholar]
2. Bandes S. Patterns of injustice: police brutality in the courts. Buffalo Law Review. 1999;47(3):1275–1342. [Google Scholar]
3. Chaney C, Robertson RV. Racism and police brutality in America. J Afr Am Stud. 2013;17(4):480–505. [Google Scholar]
4. Cooper HL, Fullilove M. Editorial: excessive police violence as a public health issue. J Urban Health. 2016;93(suppl 1):1–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Kahn KB, Goff PA, Lee JK, Motamed D. Protecting whiteness: White phenotypic racial stereotypicality reduces police use of force. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2016;7(5):403–411. [Google Scholar]
7. Bonilla-Silva E. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boston, MA: Lynne Rienner; 2001. [Google Scholar]
8. Gee GC, Ford CL. Structural racism and health inequities: old issues, new directions. Du Bois Rev. 2011;8(1):115–132. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Kiang MV, Feldman J. Police killings and police deaths are public health data and can be counted. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001915. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Miller TR, Lawrence BA, Carlson NN et al. Perils of police action: a cautionary tale from US data sets. Inj Prev. 2017;23(1):27–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Feldman JM, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Krieger N. Temporal trends and racial/ethnic inequalities for legal intervention injuries treated in emergency departments: US men and women age 15–34, 2001–2014. J Urban Health. 2016;93(5):797–807. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Embrick DG. Two nations, revisited: the lynching of black and brown bodies, police brutality, and racial control in “post-racial” Amerikkka. Crit Sociol. 2015;41(6):835–843. [Google Scholar]
14. Geller A, Fagan J, Tyler T, Link BG. Aggressive policing and the mental health of young urban men. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2321–2327. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Duru OK, Harawa NT, Kermah D, Norris KC. Allostatic load burden and racial disparities in mortality. J Natl Med Assoc. 2012;104(1–2):89–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Geronimus AT, Hicken M, Keene D, Bound J. “Weathering” and age patterns of allostatic load scores among Blacks and Whites in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):826–833. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Jee-Lyn García J, Sharif MZ. Black Lives Matter: a commentary on racism and public health. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):e27–e30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Szanton SL, Thorpe RJ, Whitfield K. Life-course financial strain and health in African-Americans. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(2):259–265. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Barber C, Azrael D, Cohen A et al. Homicides by police: comparing counts from the national violent death reporting system, vital statistics, and supplementary homicide reports. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(5):922–927. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Banks D, Couzens L, Planty M. Assessment of coverage in the arrest-related deaths program. 2015. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/acardp.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2017.
21. Brunson RK. “Police don’t like Black people”: African-American young men’s accumulated police experiences. Criminol Public Policy. 2007;6(1):71–101. [Google Scholar]
22. Sewell AA, Jefferson KA. Collateral damage: the health effects of invasive police encounters in New York City. J Urban Health. 2016;93(suppl 1):42–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hardeman RR, Medina EM, Kozhimannil KB. Structural racism and supporting Black lives—the role of health professionals. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2113–2115. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Ford CL, Airhihenbuwa CO. Critical race theory, race equity, and public health: toward antiracism praxis. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(suppl 1):S30–S35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
