Let’s say you order a washing machine online. The manufacturer admits the appliance is in short supply but pledges to deliver the item in a couple of months – tops. You pay the hefty cost.

You wait. And wait some more.

In the meantime, you keep schlepping your dirty clothes to the laundromat, fishing around for enough quarters each week. You wonder what’s going on with your purchase. Nor can the appliance maker tell you when your machine will actually arrive.

That example is similar, in a roundabout way, to the issue of getting rid of bad cops in Virginia. Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration has repeatedly delayed updating parts of a 2020 law to decertify rogue police officers despite a more than a year old deadline. What’s going on?

More tools to remove bad cops have taken effect since then; the changes are an obvious improvement. They help bolster the confidence of Virginia residents toward the men and women in blue. But the administration was supposed to have approved related statewide standards more than a year ago – and still hasn’t.

Changes in decertification of police should bolster trust among Virginians

VPM recently reported on the foot-dragging.

In essence, Youngkin, a Republican, and his public safety officials have thumbed their noses at the law passed during the administration of Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam, which expanded reasons for officer decertification.

This is a bothersome precedent. It could lead to reprisals when political parties shift power in a never-ending tit-for-tat in which duly enacted laws aren’t enforced by succeeding administrations. Ultimately, Virginians lose.

“I’m kind of mystified,” Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax and a supporter of the 2020 law, told me in an interview. He also wondered if the administration could be sued over the delay.

The governor “doesn’t get to pick and choose what laws he wants to follow,” he said.

“We worked very closely with law-enforcement leadership to design changes to the process,” Surovell continued. Police chiefs and sheriffs had been frustrated about the inability to root out bad officers, and the options to decertify police had been limited.

Before 2020, departments could decertify officers only after they were convicted of felonies or specific misdemeanors or if they refused a drug test. Nor were law-enforcement agencies always checking closely with previous employers when officers tried to relocate.

A Dec. 1 letter from Surovell, the Senate majority leader; Sen. Mamie Locke, the Senate Democratic Caucus chair; and Del. Don Scott, the incoming speaker of the Democratic-majority House of Delegates, asked administration officials when they intend “to comply with state law” and why the review has taken so long.

The law’s approval in 2020 came partly as a response to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Virginia legislators and high-ranking police officials, however, had been seeking more ways to decertify officers long before that.

A 2012 news story, for example, noted officers in Virginia fired for criminal convictions and other infractions often kept their state certification. They could move to other jurisdictions in the commonwealth. Top police officials said they needed the state’s help to change the status quo.

From 1999 to early 2021, 83 law enforcement officers and jail staff lost their ability to work in Virginia because of bad conduct. From March 2021 – when the new law took effect – through February 2023, 118 officers were decertified, according to state data published by the law enforcement watchdog group OpenOversightVA.

The majority of the latter group were decertified for false statements during internal affairs investigations, VPM reported. Others were jettisoned for infractions, including use of force violations or falsifying documents.

The stats suggest some of those officers could’ve hung on to their jobs before the new changes.

As then-Norfolk Police Chief Larry Boone told me in 2020, if he fired an officer for using excessive force, that person could “go to another agency if that department did not come and look at his personnel records.”

The changes in the decertification law also meant an officer could lose his credentials if he were fired or resigned for actions that compromised his “credibility, integrity, honesty, or other characteristics.”

Another clause in the law dictated officers would be terminated if they didn’t adhere to as-yet-to-be-determined statewide standards. As VPM reported, a work group including representatives from law enforcement and criminal justice advocates developed those policies. It took the group nine months to reach consensus on the standards, which the Criminal Justice Services Board passed in June 2022, five months after Youngkin took office.

The proposed standards require officers to “treat all individuals with dignity and respect” and “uphold the public trust.” The proposal spells out misconduct that can lead to decertification, including making a false arrest, tampering with evidence or a witness, or having sex with someone in custody.

However, the regulation and several others relating to training and accountability have spent more than 470 days under review by Youngkin’s secretary of public safety, even though state law required the standards to be passed within 280 days of the statute going into effect.

I asked Macaulay Porter, Youngkin’s spokesperson, about the delay and whether any pending reviews of other laws had taken so long. She didn’t respond to voicemail and email requests.

Law enforcement officials and other interested parties worked diligently to craft the policies. There’s no justifiable reason for the administration’s delays.

At this rate, the phantom washing machine will arrive before the updated decertification standards. The administration’s tortoise-like review is indefensible – and worrisome.

by Roger Chesley, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sarah Vogelsong for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Share the News:

Love him or hate him, Andrew Jackson is undoubtably one of the most influential and important presidents in American history.

Jackson’s presidential victory in 1828 ushered in several major political parties shifts including the creation of a new party and the birth of the Second American Party System of Democrats and Whigs.

Jackson, and the real mastermind behind the curtain, Martin Van Buren, created the new Democratic Party as a classical liberal Jeffersonian Party. Together Jackson and Van Buren planned to succeed where Jefferson had failed during his presidency, especially in his attempt to keep the federal government small. Jackson vetoed improvement projects like the National Road to keep spending low and went to war against the Second Bank of the U.S. until he successfully killed it – along with the nation’s economy. Jackson also fought banks in general, hating what today we call ‘predatory lending.’ He preferred hard currency like gold and silver to paper money loaned by banks.

Jackson, on the other hand, acted much more like a modern president than others of his day. During the 19th century, Congress ran made the rules and set the policies; presidents very much took a back seat. The exceptions were Jackson, and later Lincoln. Jackson felt he should dominate government being that his position was the only one elected by the entire nation. He vetoed 11 bills in his presidency, more than the previous six presidents combined. Earlier presidents only used the veto if they felt a bill was unconstitutional; Jackson used his vetoing power if he simply disagreed with the bill.

Jackson wielded so much power during his presidency that his enemies began calling him King Andrew. The nickname stuck and became the basis for the opposition party name that grew to challenge him. In 1833, the Opposition Party began referring to themselves as the Whig Party, a name taken from a British political party that once opposed King James I.

At first, the party makeup was eclectic. The only requirement to join was hating Jackson. Its principal founders were an old Federalist lawyer from Boston, Daniel Webster; a classic conservative westerner from Kentucky, Henry Clay; and a state’s rights liberal from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun. Over time the party came to represent the classical conservative stance of what will be known as The American System, which called for positive government to build an infrastructure of roads, canals, and railroads to support industrialization as well as impose higher tariffs to support homegrown businesses.

The other area of change was the idea of parties. Where once parties were seen as an evil necessity, Jackson saw them as a positive good. He believed parties guaranteed that ideologies remained pure. Under the one-party Era of Good Feelings, Federalists, calling themselves Republicans, were able to get into the henhouse. Under a two-party system, people could gather with likeminded individuals and push an actual agenda. Under this system people knew what to expect when voting for a Democrat or a Whig. If a candidate did not agree with the party’s platform, they would not be supported by that party in an election. So, if you ever vote straight ticket in an election, you can thank Jackson. Often voters do not need to know who is running for office; they just know to support either Republican or Democratic candidates because those values are intrinsic to those parties.

Parties also gave control to their leadership. Leaders could force candidates to follow the party line or lose support. Leaders kept constituents loyal by offering rewards for their support. The principal job of the 19th century president was granting government jobs to party supporters, something known as the spoils system. This led to a great deal of widespread corruption, but also solidified the party’s power.

The most important aspect of legitimate parties came from Van Buren, who saw parties as the ultimate glue to hold the nation together. As the North and South were starting to go in different directions, it was parties that united them. As long as there were Whigs and Democrats in both the North and South, and they kept conversations to banks, tariffs and internal improvements, Americans remained loyal to their parties’ ideologies and hence to a unified nation.

Whigs and Democrats fought it out in the 1830s and 1840s. Neither side able to hold the presidency for long. In fact, there was not a two-term president between when Jackson’s departure from office in 1836 and when Lincoln’s 1860 election. The two parties stuck to their ideological roots – Democrats as classic liberals and Whigs as classic conservatives – during these decades. However, starting in the 1850s, America was forced to deal with the slavery issue which tore the Second American Party system apart and set the nation up for war.

James Finck, Ph.D. is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

Share the News:

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of FTX and Alameda Research hedge fund has been found guilty on all seven counts related to financial fraud and money laundering in a lower Manhattan courtroom. The trial took a lot less time than expected, as did the jury’s deliberation of the case which speaks to the overwhelming evidence against the onetime financial guru of entertainers, crypto enthusiasts, and politicians. SBF could face sentencing of up to 100 years behind bars.

Gary Gensler, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that “Sam Bankman-Fried built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto.”* Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams concurred, calling Bankman-Fried’s actions “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.”**

SBF’s conviction is particularly fitting since he had marketed himself as a new-style capitalist who was more interested in philanthropy and giving away his wealth, instead of enriching himself. That so many were taken in by this charlatan, especially a number of supposedly savvy investors, demonstrates again that greed remains a significant part of the human condition.

While SBF will hopefully receive his just rewards for his wrongdoings, there is another fraud that has been taking place in the financial world for quite some time, which dwarfs exponentially the scam of the one-time “crypto-king.” Unlike SBF, however, this entity continues to exist and faces no prosecution, but instead is often praised for its operations.

The institution, of course, is the Federal Reserve and, for that matter, all central banks.  Central banks do what FTX did but on a colossal scale. While SBF’s crimes were limited to those who foolishly invested with him, the Fed’s customers are all those who hold dollars and have little option to not use them unless they want to revert to barter and become desperately poor. Like what SBF did to his investors, the Fed has defrauded (although surreptitiously) its “customers” by robbing them of their purchasing power through monetary debasement. The loss of purchasing power by the public has been redistributed to the Fed, the political class, and financial elites.

While Fed officials, the government, academia, and the sycophantic financial press may try and obfuscate the matter, the fact remains that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money out of thin air and without limit. It is essentially counterfeiting writ large.  No criminal, be it SBF, Bernie Madoff, or the Mafia, could ever dream of such a scenario!

The Fed’s creation of money through credit expansion is certainly more subtle than the swindling which SBF engaged in or what took place in earlier times from “coin clipping,” but the underlying criminality of the action is certainly the same. However, central banking is a part of the financial structure of almost every nation-state regardless of which political party is in control.

As SBF wrapped himself in an aura of a benevolent and charitable new-age businessman, the Fed hides behind its criminality by presenting itself as a necessary and indispensable factor for the nation’s economic well-being. Without the Fed and its dual mandate of “price stability” and full employment, the economy would collapse.

Yet, this is a ruse. Before the advent of central banking, economic life went about quite nicely. It was only when central banks appeared that the dreaded boom and bust cycle became more frequent and severe. Moreover, in the pre-central bank era, most of the world was on a gold/silver standard where paper money notes could be redeemed for gold and or silver. This acted as a check on inflation and protected peoples’ purchasing power.

The Fed was created in a bi-partisan manner by the top politicos and the major U.S. banks and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. It allowed banks to counterfeit without facing the consequences of their actions. Stable prices and low unemployment are secondary functions of the Fed and mostly spoken about for public relations.  Protection of the system, especially the solvency of the Big Banks and now funding the national government through debt monetization, remains the prime responsibility of the Fed.

This, of course, is not to exonerate SBF. Why is it though that the laws which convicted the rogue crypto financier are not applied to America’s central bank?  When sovereigns of the past debased the money supply most acknowledged its immorality and pointed out who benefited. In this supposed enlightened age where “equal justice before the law” is supposedly a ruling mandate of the legal system, its application apparently does not apply to the monetary authorities of the world and their political front men from all political sides.

Capitalism, at its core, is a moral argument where respect for property rights, the freedom to exchange, honest money, and the liberty to become an entrepreneur are the foundations upon which the system rests. Those who legitimately satisfy consumer tastes and demand are rightly rewarded. Naturally, in doing so, entrepreneurs enrich themselves but they do so by providing for the needs of their customers and in the process create jobs and incomes for those they employ, all of which is done on a voluntary basis.

Central banking is the essential instrument of “crony capitalism” which is the antithesis of free enterprise. Crony capitalism is a new version of mercantilism which was condemned by the likes of Adam Smith and was one of the factors why the American Revolution was fought. It has since come back with a vengeance.

Besides the immorality of central banking, the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply has deleterious effects on economic life. Inflation hurts the poor and the working class disproportionately while the Fed’s control of interest rates and credit is the reason for the dreaded business cycle.

The present age has prided itself in its efforts to attain justice in regard to race relations, the environment, economic equality, and now gender recognition. Yet, the immorality of central banking remains, and while Sam Bankman-Fried may be incarcerated, social justice warriors (as well as conservatives) willfully ignore the counterfeiting elephant in the room. Until central banking is outlawed, a truly just social order is an impossibility.

James P. Philbin
Adjunct Professor of Economics and History
Northern Virginia Community College

FOOTNOTE: *https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sam-bankman-fried-found

FOOTNOTE: **https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/sam-bankman-fried-has-been-arrested.html

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Share the News:

Front Royal’s own Reverend Dr. Mark Jordon recently delivered a sermon about how the best place to look for the birth of Christ is in the hearts and faces of those we encounter in our daily lives.  That, he argued, is the right way to combat the divisiveness that threatens not only our community but the world at large.  I believe we saw that dark force at play in our recent elections, where candidates launched attacks against each other because of their religion, schooling preference, and family members.  I doubt I am the only one who felt that this detracted from the sanctity of civic life.

With Dr. Jordan’s encouragement in mind, I accepted my supervisor’s invitation to meet with Tom McFadden, who will join the school board soon.  I will admit that I approached this meeting with a touch of apprehension, but I respected his willingness to work through whatever apprehension he may have also had.

Hearing Mr. McFadden’s questions, I believe he approached our meeting with an open mind and a willingness to listen.  He asked how he could help recruit and retain teachers.  He asked how he could highlight the positive activities occurring within the school system.  He offered his admiration for our schools’ efforts to serve students with disabilities – at no additional cost to families.  After the meeting, he thanked us for our time; he reached out to other staff members and thanked them for serving our community.

I do not believe that one conversation with a person allows you to “see their soul,” and I do not believe that Mr. McFadden and I would agree on every opinion or issue.  I do believe, however, that gestures of goodwill deserve to be seen as such and that they should encourage civil discourse.  We will face challenges and need to debate issues, but we must do so in a way that recognizes ourselves in each other.  He is Catholic, and I am Presbyterian – but we both have faith in God.  He attended public schools in Ireland, and I attended Warren County Public Schools, but we both believe in providing our community’s children with a good education.  We both love our wives and families dearly.

As citizens of a democratic republic, we will likely find ourselves at odds with each other on serious issues.  Mr. McFadden and I are equally capable of disappointing each other in the future.  Neither he nor I nor you know what the future holds for our community.

As Dr. Jordon said on Sunday, we must wait and see because SOMETHING is happening.  Is it the rot, bile, and vitriol that we saw during contentious moments during the election season, or is it the hope, goodwill, and fellowship that I believe I saw in this recent meeting?  Will we attack each other from a distance based on preconceived notions that might be inaccurate, or will we meet together and listen to each other’s points of view?

Zachary D. Logan
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Share the News:

I’d like to extend a giant THANK YOU to everyone involved in making Christmas on Main – Christmas Parade & Merry Market such a HUGE success.

To our volunteers who helped get everything set up, assisted vendors ushered the carriage rides, made sure the parade entries were lined up, and helped to ensure a great day for everyone: you are appreciated, and these events can’t happen without you!

To our friends at the Town of Front Royal Public Works and Energy Services staff who blocked streets, cleared parking lots, picked up trash, made sure the electricity was working, and so much more: you are the best, and your efforts do not go unnoticed. To the Officers at the Front Royal Police Department who worked tirelessly to keep everyone safe during the day’s events: your vigilance and professionalism are outstanding. I’d also like to acknowledge the hard work of Lizi Lewis, Manager of Community Development & Tourism, and her team at the Visitor Center. They are always helpful, insightful, and great to work with on events and projects.

To our vendors and parade participants: You knocked it out of the park this year! I was in awe of the artistry and magic in your creations. You made us all feel like we were in a Hallmark movie.

To our merchants and residents downtown: thank you for your patience and for sharing our beautiful downtown with everyone.

Last but certainly not least, to our community: Thank you for showing up. It was truly amazing to look out and see such a remarkable crowd. I hope the event made your heart as happy as it made mine and that you created memories to enjoy for a lifetime.

There is quite a bit of time and effort that goes into planning events like these. At the Chamber, we are already looking forward to next year and thinking about how we can make this event even more enjoyable for everyone. We’re always open to hearing your thoughts and suggestions. Please reach out if you have something to share.

I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!

All the best,

Niki Foster, President
Front Royal-Warren County Chamber of Commerce

Share the News:

I wish to extend my Congratulations to my opponent and incumbent, Kristen Pence, on her victory in retaining her seat on our local school board!

I’d like now to address Mr. Bianchini regarding his November 8 write-up.  While I guess it is likely that someone by the name of “Leslie Matthews” chairs a group called “Mothers for Liberty” and is employed at Christendom College, I believe you were reporting on me.

I must clarify — I am “Leslie Mathews” – an employee of Christendom College and Founder and Chair of the Mom’s for Liberty, Warren County, VA Chapter, a fairly new, powerful, and strong parental rights organization in America.  During and after my campaign for the school board, the above-mentioned info seemed to be of huge interest to some, so I wanted to enlighten you a bit.

The online group — “Save Samuels” chose to make its opinion known regarding certain candidates, who they claim did or did not support our local library, and in my opinion, turning our latest local election into a fiasco! Other organizations, such as the Browntown Community Center, piggy-backed off the “Save Samuels” group when forwarding this group’s “online packet” out to their email recipients, and there were some campaigners who were asking voters if they would like a “sample ballot” listing the names of the candidates who supported the library (see attached).

Mr. Bianchini, although you reported that Moms for Liberty came about just before the issues surfaced in our local library, I regretfully inform you that I nor Moms for Liberty, Warren County, VA, can rightfully take credit in bringing forth the awareness of the filth that was at our children’s reach in our Samuels library!  I wish to take this opportunity to thank those who brought this issue to light and for pursuing new procedures through efforts to protect our children!

We members of Moms for Liberty consist of parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who stand for parental rights and who will fight to protect the very innocence of our children’s minds, hearts, and bodies!  If that means, when choosing to be candidates in local elections, we have our names listed in opposition to others’ views and/or that our names aren’t shaded in on a sample ballot because of this — then so be it!  Almighty God warns – Woe, to those who harm and disregard the protection of the children, it would be better to tie a millstone around their neck and toss them into the depths of the sea!  I take His warnings seriously, and I never give a false indication of where I stand or whom I affiliate with. I thank you, Mr. Bianchini, for taking notice, but I suggest you dig deeper next time on the affiliations of others so you have a much more accurate report.  (see attachment).

My run for the school board seat was very good, and I want to thank those who supported me and my endeavors.  The numbers speak volumes and give hope that several South River folks still remain morally steadfast and will press forward for our children’s educational best and the future of America.  For that, I am sincerely grateful!

Mrs. Leslie Mathews
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Share the News: