Daily Archives: April 27, 2021

Bickering over a presidential speech to Congress this year began more than a week before the event. On April 19, Republican lawmakers wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, requesting she postpone Joe Bidens first presidential speech to Congress until the House of Representatives is in session. (The House will be conducting committee work during the week of April 26-30.)

Given widespread vaccination on Capitol Hill, they also asked Pelosi to increase capacity limits from a planned cap of 200 attendees to let all interested members attend the April 28 address.

Republican concerns about the timing of Bidens speech are valid. But rather than rescheduling the address, they should seek to end the practice of presidents addressing Congressboth to reassert the primacy of the legislative branch, and to end political set pieces that often devolve into partisan food fights.

Pelosis stunt at the end of last years State of the Union addressin which she tore up a copy of President Donald Trumps speechrepresented merely the latest case the message has become a spectacle full of political antics and poor decorum.

Two years ago, Pelosi asked Trump to postpone his address during the lengthy government shutdown, claiming that hosting the speech would present security concerns since federal workers remained on furlough. Her claims seemed questionable at best; most security personnel were not furloughed, working through the shutdown as essential employees. Trumps address eventually occurred on Feb. 5, a week after its originally scheduled date and after the shutdown ended.

The State of the Union has become a partisan brawl on both sides of the aisle. Members of the presidents party cheer obnoxiously, and members of the opposing party jeer obnoxiously. Pelosis theatrics at the end of last years speech only served as a climax to Democrats chanting and jeering during earlier portions of the address, and went further than her infamous clap during the 2019 address.

Lest one think the juvenile behavior comes only from Democrats, Republicans too have engaged in similar outbursts under a Democrat president. During Barack Obamas September 2009 speech to Congress on health care (technically not a State of the Union message), Republican members stood up with copies of their health-care proposals, protesting Obamas claim that opponents of his plan wanted to do nothing.

The night culminated in Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, yelling You lie! to Obamas claims that Obamacare would not provide coverage to illegal aliens.

On substance, Wilsons primal yell had more than a ring of truth to ita Senate report later found roughly half a million people with verification issues received Obamacare subsidiesbut was still tactless and inappropriate. (Wilson at least had the decency to apologize after his outburst, unlike Pelosi.) In retrospect, it reflected a coarsening of behavior during the State of the Union by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

While the State of the Union derives its name and mandate from the Constitution, that document nowhere requires the president to deliver a message in person, or annually. Rather, Article II, Section 3 states the executive shall from time to time give to Congress Information of the State of the Union.

For most of the nations history, such information came via annual written messages to Congress rather than in-person addresses. George Washington and John Adams delivered their messages in person, but Thomas Jefferson abandoned the practice, thinking it too similar to the Queens Speechthe practice where the monarch in Britain reads out her governments agenda from the throne during the State Opening of Parliament.

For more than a century, presidents followed Jeffersons tradition of written messages. Woodrow Wilson restarted the in-person address to Congress, but ill health following his stroke meant he delivered his 1919 and 1920 messages in writing. Two of Wilsons successors, Calvin Silent Cal Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, also employed written messages.

Only since Franklin Roosevelt have presidents regularly addressed Congress every year. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson moved the State of the Union speech to prime time, where it became a major event on the political calendar. The move coincided with the Great Societys growth of government and a commensurate rise in presidential powera rise members of Congress, as participants in a co-equal branch of government, should seek to thwart, not encourage.

After all, the president proposes, but Congress disposes. So why should Congress spend 90 minutes listening to a president tell them what to do?

Republicans should start the process of ending in-person State of the Union messages. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, should publicly announce an intention to end the practice, giving him a mandate in the event Republicans retake control of the House in next years midterm election.

The address has become an opportunity for grandstanding and partisan arguments that deliver little substance, prompt childish behavior from members of Congress, and generate more light than heat. Even the practice of recognizing Americans in the balcony during the addressbegun by President Reagan in his 1982 speechtechnically breaches the Houses rules of decorum.

(Clause 7 of Rule XVII of the House requires: During a session of the House, it shall not be in orderto introduce to or to bring to the attention of the House an occupant in the galleries of the House. The Speaker may not entertain a request for the suspension of this rule.)

Too many lawmakers have used presidential addresses to beclown themselves and the institution they represent. Congress should do all of us a favor by depriving themselves of the opportunity to continue.

Read more:

Don't Postpone Biden's State Of The Union. Cancel It Entirely - The Federalist

Theres one big question for anyone who believes Google does not provide search results in an objective and politically neutral manner: Why havent you changed your default search engine to DuckDuckGo?

The internet has allowed for a democratization of information, which has been a boon to intellectual discourse. Traditionally, internet search algorithms have provided results based on popularity and relevance, in effect creating a free market of ideas.

But this intellectual discourse has been limited in two ways: First, Google began to dominate the market in searches, now accounting for 90 percent of web searches. Second, in the last few years, Google appears to have begun manipulating its search results especially on controversial topics. This becomes quite evident when comparing Googles search results to its competitor search engines, such as the more politically neutral DuckDuckGo.

When we use search engines, there is more at stake than meets the eye. As information science professor Helen Nissenbaum puts it, there are several implications for venerated political freedoms of speech, association, communication, conscience, and religious affiliation. When search engine companies conduct themselves in a biased manner, and when those companies have a veritable monopoly online, this effectively curtails freedom of speech.

In a political environment in which the facts are often disputed by both sides, it is worrisome not just that Google has such enormous power to establish fact from fiction, but that it frequently seems to do so. DuckDuckGo does not appear to similarly manipulate its search results, letting its search findings simply reflect the most popular and relevant web pages according to their search engines algorithm.

Bias can be interpreted differently by different parties. Yet Googles attempt to remedy bias paradoxically creates bias. One way to define bias is any manipulation of search results to achieve a political or sociological aim.

Although Google might try to remedy complaints of bias with the best of intentions, its actions diminish the objectivity of its search results: Are you seeing these results because they are the most popular and relevant web pages? Or are you seeing these results because Google has decided to exclude certain web pages deemed to be misinformation or hate, based on their inscrutable standards of what qualifies as misinformation?

Leftist journalists have pressured Google to change everything from their autocomplete search bar function, to the Google Image results for scientists, to the search results for certain topics. Yet there is no need for Google to guard against misinformation when the free market of ideas generally takes care of that.

For example, in a search of a controversial question: Do vaccines cause autism? both Google and DuckDuckGo only provide search results on their first couple of pages that answer this in the negative. Both sets of results included mainstream medical websites such as WebMD and government websites such as the Centers for Disease Control.

Not only can one learn vaccines have not been proven to cause autism by either Google or DuckDuckGo search results, one can learn why people think that: It is based on one scientists findings that were never able to be replicated in future experiments, and was in turn discredited by scientists.

But on a politically contentious issue, there are more divergent results using DuckDuckGo as opposed to Google: The search term joe biden on illegal immigration 2020 returns many conservative websites that take a critical stance on Bidens position in the DuckDuckGo results. With Google, none of these websites are listed instead, its search results on the same question exclusively show websites sympathetic to his position.

It could be expected that this search term would have a conservative skew, as it did in the DuckDuckGo results, because illegal immigration is more of a Republican framing of the issue. Nonetheless, Google did not show any of these Biden-critical webpages on its crucial first page of results.

Within its first 10 listed results for the search term regarding Biden and illegal immigration, DuckDuckGo delivers the following websites that are center-right or conservative: National Review, PJ Media, Breitbart, and The Daily Signal on its first page results. Google to the contrary delivers websites such as Washington Post and NPR within its first 10 results.

Yet NPR, for example, gives a positive frame to Bidens immigration agenda, assuring readers that he will reverse many of Trumps most controversial actions. The conservative or center-right sources, meanwhile, point out the possible dangers of Bidens stance on illegal immigration, claiming that many immigrants will not show up for their court date for the asylum hearing and that they are not being properly screened for coronavirus.

This is a pretty dramatic difference in search results. Could it be that Google placed a weighty hand in the results because of the implications of this issue for the 2020 election?

The extent to which voters can be swayed by search engine results is considerable. According to the work of Dr. Robert Epstein, who testified before the Senate on the matter, search engine bias can produce shifts in the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters by as much as 20 percent. Reading remarks such as this, it becomes clear whats at stake in search engine bias: American self-governance.

Of course, the above example is just one of the suspicious discrepancies of results between the two search engines. To see the full extent to which Google is suppressing center-right news sources, you can test it for yourself with search terms of your choice.

Now, to the solution: You will rarely, if ever, stop using Google so long as it is your default search engine. Every time you type a query in the URL bar, it will go straight to Google. Realistically, youre not going to type duckduckgo.com every time you want to search for something online.

Instead, heres how to change your search engine default to DuckDuckGo from Chrome, and it is a similar process with other browsers:

This way, instead of merely complaining about political bias in Google we can simply exercise our free market choice for a readily available alternative.

Continue reading here:

If You Don't Want To Use Google's Biased Search Engine, Try This - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Senior Editor Christopher Bedford and Assistant Editor Kylee Zempel join Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to outline how the corporate media adopt radical left narratives that purposefully distort the U.S.s self-image.

My first reaction was I need to find out what actually happened and I dont think that any corporate media or politicians have that instinct at all, Zempel said of when she heard that a police officer shot 16-year-old MaKhia Bryant.

They see these isolated instances, they get a few details that seem juicy, and they instantly run with it. And thats how you create a narrative and gin up emotions and protests and enthusiasm for your movement before you know any of the facts. It truly, honestly is effective at inciting violence, she said.

These narratives perpetuated by reporters, activists, and others who choose to ignore the facts, Bedford said, are doing the opposite of justice.

For the last year weve had store owners standing in front of ashes that were their lives, old men who went down to protect their friends stores, retired police officers never returning to their wives gunned down in the streets, police officers run over with cars because they stood in line to try and protect cities, federal agents blinded temporarily, store owners beaten, people murdered, looting, with no repercussions while these fruitcakes chant no justice, no peace, Bedford said.

They claim, well thats justice, thats justice for George FloydEverything youre saying is a lie. The whole point of view is to say that America is not just. Youre saying that injustice is justice.

Listen here:

Follow this link:

The Marriage Of Media And Radical Leftism Distorts America's Self-Image - The Federalist

Television ratings for the 2021 Academy Awards ceremony plummeted by more than 50 percent since last years overnight ratings, OutKick reported Monday.

Using a year-over-year calculation, OutKick found that the Oscars, once again, suffered a large and steadily declining viewership blow. In 2020, the awards show garnered 18.1/33. This year, however, the numbers dropped to 8.6/18.

After last years Oscar ratings were the lowest the awards show had ever seen, only garnering 23.6 million viewers, expectations for the 2021 numbers were low. One Oscars producer admitted to the New York Times last week that the infiltration of woke politics may be turning viewers away from the once-influential show.

One recent producer of the Oscars, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential metrics, said minute-by-minute post-show ratings analysis indicated that vast swaths of people turned off their televisions when celebrities started to opine on politics, the New York Times reported.

The Oscars decline in viewership and eagerness to embrace celebrities spouting off progressive rhetoric from the stage is fueling the awards shows divorce from the general American public.

The Oscars broadcast is en route to consciously serving just another elite progressive niche, like The Late Show under Stephen Colbert or The New York Times, The Federalists Emily Jashinsky wrote. Hollywood is working through those growing pains, trying to boost ratings while permitting and encouraging divisive politics and honoring niche cinema. They might be wise to just fast forward.

While some celebs embrace the shift, others such as Tyler Perry showed reluctance to accept the progressive Hollywood narrative that encourages people to hate

I refuse to hate someone because they are Mexican or because they are Black or white or LBGTQ. I refuse to hate someone because they are a police officer. I refuse to hate someone because they are Asian, he said.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Here is the original post:

Increasingly Woke Oscars Hits All-Time Low TV Ratings, Loses Half Of Last Year's Audience - The Federalist

Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech asked viewers a core question to close out his week of guest-hosting Fox News Primetime Friday:If we love our country and we believe it is facing a crisis, how do we go about saving it? He said he believes the answer is not easy, but it is simple.

We do not take kindly to people who wish to rule us, and we do not accept their subjugation easily. If you are an American, your heritage is one of throwing off the burdens of a faraway ruling elite that seeks to direct your life and accepting the responsibility to govern yourself in community with your neighbors, he said.

Americas current ruling class, which guest John McWhorter calls the Elect, wants to use tools like the America-hatred of antiracism to subjugate Americans for their own gain. Domenech urged viewers to consider what they can do in their daily lives to push back against the ruling classs desire to end an America that secures their rights in favor of an unrecognizable America in which the ruling class exploits everyone else.

Seek out others to fight against them simply by not accepting their frame of the nature of our country or of your life, he suggested. Rearrange your finances to fund competing institutions to those the Elect have corrupted. Put your kids in schools that reflect your deepest values, and primary politicians who wont work for you and arent up for this fight.

See the original post:

Domenech: What Everyone Can Do To Help Resolve The American Crisis - The Federalist

On Friday afternoon, Facebook began attaching a ridiculous fact check to my top-read Federalist article of last week titled, Theres No Way Americans Can Trust The Jurys Chauvin Verdict. Anyone who wanted to share the article on Facebook was forced to do so with the opinion-based fact check attached, which means Facebook also likely throttled the distribution of the article on its platform.

Facebook and the factcheckers it pays have a history of targeting The Federalist due not to factual errors but political bias. The more fact checkers target a publication, the more Facebook and Google choke off that publications traffic.

The so-called fact check used to suppress open discourse was conducted by the Facebook-sponsored USA Today, a politically biased outlet with a history of running false, ridiculous, and trumped-up claims as fact checks. This particular fact check uncovered not one single factual error but only insisted the argument my Federalist article made was missing context in other words, I expressed an opinion different from that of the USA Today writer.

The fact check makes this clear in its summary at the end, showing that its ruling is based on coming to a different interpretation of the facts available, not on finding false information:

The claim that former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin did not get a fair trial for the killing of George Floyd is MISSING CONTEXT. Its couched as an opinion in this post, but its one that ignores the steps taken to ensure the trial was indeed fair. Cahill set aside three weeks for jury selection, and an unusually large pool of prospective jurors were called for the trial. Chauvins defense attorneys and prosecutors were both given more chances to remove jurors than is typical in Minnesota, but the defense received more. Jurors were sequestered in an undisclosed hotel to deliberate on the verdict.

This is not a fact check. It is a disagreement about what the facts indicate. It is also the naked suppression of ideas based on partisan ideology, using the monopoly power of Big Tech to control what people are allowed to say and discuss. This is a direct attack on Americans ability to have a self-governing society, which requires the free expression of ideas, not massive private entities deciding what people are allowed to say and share.

I said nothing illegal and called for no violence. I merely expressed my opinion about a current event of major public attention based on information the fact checker could not dispute as false.

Also, the fact check isnt even about my specific article! Facebook attached a fact check that specifically argues with another person expressing a similar opinion Derek Chauvin did not get a fair trial then used it also to throttle my article that no fact checker publicly reviewed, all in the name of preventing misinformation. Thats ridiculous. Its an utterly absurd and compromised process. Nobody could believe it is fair or reasonable except extreme partisans.

So USA Today colluded with Facebook to broadly suppress opinions suggesting Derek Chauvins trial was affected by the year of violent leftist bedlam and likelihood of aggression against jurors if they dared to express a reasonable doubt about Chauvins complicity in the death of George Floyd.

Even wilder, Facebook started choking this opinion after more facts emerged that support it. On April 22, an alternate juror in the Chauvin trial, who was included in all the jury duties and treated like the other jurors except for not finally voting in the verdict, told a local news outlet, I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

She also noted that during the trial rioters came near her home and protesters blocked a local interstate she was driving on. This clearly reinforces the factual basis for the opinion I expressed about the Chauvin trial in the article Facebook choked: Given the circumstances of the trial, however, its extremely hard to believe the jury was solely concerned with either truth or justice. Its extremely hard, if not impossible, for any thinking person not to have a reasonable doubt about the outcome.

This jurors information came out the day before Facebook and USA Today colluded to suppress an opinion supported by these facts. They clearly did so not based on facts, but based on a competing opinion.

Instead of identifying factual errors, USA Today fact check author Rick Rouan instead quoted people who disagree with a conclusion based on these facts, then used their disagreement to slap on a misinformation label that has the effect of suppressing the ideas organic spread on the largest online platform. Legal experts interviewed by USA TODAY said courts dont have easily defined criteria or tests to determine whether a trial was fair, Rouan wrote. All three experts interviewed by USA TODAY agreed that Chauvin received a fair trial.

The USA Today articles entire argument is: Three lawyers disagree with you, so youre not allowed to express this opinion. But the question is not whether three legal experts have some opinion. The question is why USA Today is privileging some peoples opinions over those of others, and why Facebook knowingly uses them to do so. Everyone knows the answer is controlling people by controlling their speech.

Everybody also knows that you can get three lawyers to say just about anything you want them to. Their entire profession is based on advocating specific viewpoints in exchange for money.

So, now, is USA Todays. At least lawyers dont pretend their business model is the complete opposite of what it truly is. We have to ask ourselves, then, why Facebook and USA Today choose to lie to all of us and then pretend thats not what theyre doing.

Read more here:

Facebook Throttles Article Arguing Chauvin Verdict Was Tainted By Politics - The Federalist

Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech said that to pry the nation so many Americans love back from the leftist rulers who have overrun it, Americans must be willing to fight small battles in their communities.

It is the small victories such as a 99-year-old World War II veteran pinning his grandson, two officers helping deliver a baby, and a U.S. Army soldier rescuing a migrant girl from drowning, he said, that can make a true difference in history.

Think of the civilian small craft who saved the British Army at Dunkirk, and the Cajun Navy that swung into action after Hurricane Katrina, Domenech said at the conclusion of his week guest-hosting Fox News Primetime Friday. All these little stories are really big ones. They are about rescuing the American idea, one little boat, one soldier, one family, one community at a time.

President Joe Biden, Domenech noted, is not an ally in this fight, and neither is almost all of the current ruling class, so its up to individuals to create change and to make clear we will not accept their fictional, falsified frame of the nature of our country, or the American people, or reality itself.

Understand the Elect dont just want to rule us. They want to destroy the things we love. They want to grind us down little by little so that in the end, we have nothing and want nothing except for what they will deign to give us. And all the while, they look down on you from the heights of the institutions, they now control All they have over us then is tyranny, and I will not live under that yoke, Domenech said.

True Americans, Domenech said, will stand up to fight this tyranny in whatever ways each of us can.

We believe that all men are created equal, that they have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of anything that lies beyond that far horizon, Domenech said. We will not forget the face of our fathers by denying that fact or give in to the liars who would erase their creed. I dont say this will be easy. It wont. Nothing worth doing is, but as G.K. Chesterton wrote, We are to regard existence as a raid, or a great adventure. It is to be judged, therefore, not by what calamities encounter, but by what flag it follows, and what high town it assaults. The high town of the elect seeks to rule you. Its time we take the fight to them.

Ben Domenech Fox News Frida by The Federalist

See the original post here:

Ben Domenech: To Win The US Culture War, We Must Fight Small Battles - The Federalist

Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech said U.S. elites who remain out of touch with the working class are spurring on the nations decline.

This week Ive talked about the American crisis and its many symptoms: tolerance for crime, the destruction of the meaning of words and truths, disrespect for Christianity, hatred for Judaism, open disregard for freedom, completely unaccountable elites who hate you, Domenech said on Fox News Primetime on Friday night. But what is it, at the core of it? We smelled decay but where is it coming from?

Many Americans, Domenech continued, love their country and can tell that something is wrong.

We can see it when we drive into once-thriving cities, drug-addicted madmen wandering the streets, needles on the ground, tents in the parks, all called progress. And we can see it every time we turn on the TV: vicious accusations pointed at us that something as beautiful as silence is now violence,Domenech said. Claims that it causes incalculable damage to young black college students to live in the same dormitory as their white fellow Americans. The openly spoken idea that a secure border is fascist. The mass hysteria gripping entertainment, academia, government, and even aspects of medicine that says men can actually be women.

Not only does Domenech say these ideas are insane, but he notes they signal significant cultural and moral decline.

Decadent ideas dont flourish when people, including our elites, are hard at work when people are struggling with real problems, when civil rights is about real racist systems, Domenech said. when the left tried this ideology 60 years agothose ideas did not stick because people had real concerns and real character and a real love for our country.

The concerns of the ruling class, Domenech said, are the ultimate luxury goods of a decadent society.

Very few of them can afford such decadence because they are working hard for what they have or solving real problems, he continued. They are decadent because they steal a hard days labor. Theyre decadent on your backs, making more and more money, going wealthier and wealthier, with no care if something is made by your hands if they can get it made cheaper by weaker slaves. They dont care about you.

Corporate media and politicians willingness to write off incidents such as Mohammad Anwars death at the hands of two teenage girls and a Columbus police officers decision to shoot a black girl to save another one, Domenech said, shows just how out of touch elites are.

When we say hard work is toxic masculinity or being on time is a white racist construct, our enemies see it, just like those lords and ambassadors 400 years ago, Domenech explained. Do you think the Chinese are canceling advanced math as Virginia schools are discussing in the name of equity? Do you think that they look at us and think were strong?

While Domenech said America does not appear strong right now, it has the potential to recover if people are willing to put in the work in their communities.

The symptoms weve been dealing with, the unreasonable paranoia of disease, the offense at freedom, the obsession with emotions and how people feel instead of whats real and whats true, these are symptoms of the cancer in our cities and our universities and our ruling class, Domenech said. This is a cancer and it will be hard to survive, but America is not doomed to fail. A drive across the country will show you a lot of hopelessness, but it will also show you an indomitable character, a love of country, a love of family, a love of God, and a fighting spirit to take on the greatest battle of our lifetimes.

Ben Domenech Fox News Frida by The Federalist

Continued here:

Domenech: Ruling Class Pushes Decline, But They Don't Have To Win - The Federalist

While the free states of Texas and Florida triumph in the pandemic with cases on the decline, infections are rising in liberal states under Democrat governors once celebrated by the legacy press as crisis heroes, but Twitter doesnt want you to know that.

According to a Fox News analysis of Johns Hopkins University data published Sunday, New York, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are responsible for nearly half of all coronavirus cases nationwide between March 29 and April 4. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, however, are on track to suffer the worst of the latest surge as governors continue to embrace experimental lockdowns that traumatize residents and hollow out small businesses.

Over the last seven days, Fox News reported, relying on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan has seen 390 new cases per 100,000 residents, Pennsylvania 221 per 100,000, and 206 per 100,000 cases in New York.

On Twitters trending topics, however, the platform publisher editorialized the Fox News reporting. Although social media platforms claim they are not publishers, a summary of the trending topic written by a Twitter employee sows doubt over the low case numbers emerging from Texas and Florida. President Joe Biden railed against Texas for lifting a mask mandate as Neanderthal thinking. Florida never had a statewide mask mandate.

A Fox News report says that fully open Republican-led states including Texas and Florida are reporting fewer coronavirus cases than Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York, but many point out that it fails to clarify that the data is heavily influenced by reporting and COVID-19 testing in each state, the platform attached as a descriptor to the trending topic.

President Joe Bidens envoy on climate, meanwhile, former Secretary of State John Kerry, trended on the platform with no description as news surfaced Kerry leaked covert Israeli operations in Syria to Iranian adversaries.

While New Yorks Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo faces investigations over deliberately undercounting coronavirus deaths in nursing homes ahead of his pandemic book tour, no evidence suggests governors in Texas and Florida have manipulated case numbers to hide infections.

Here is the original post:

Twitter Engages In Misinformation Propaganda To Attack Florida and Texas - The Federalist