Daily Archives: June 18, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously smacked down the city of Philadelphias attempt to force a Catholic adoption agency to certify same-sex couples as foster parents as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment on Thursday.

Philadelphia originally said in 2018 that it would no longer refer foster children to Catholic Social Services, which has partnered with the citys foster care program for more than 50 years, due to the agencys refusal to recognize same-sex couples. The city said this violated both a non-discrimination provision in the agencys contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance, which only applies if the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.

As noted in the background for the ruling, however, other private foster agencies in Philadelphia will certify same-sex couples, and no same-sex couple has sought certification from CSS.

SCOTUS justices agreed to overturn previous rulings from the district court and the Third Circuit based on this information, saying, the Citys actions burdened CSSs religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs.

The Court recognized that it is not the governments place to exclude religious agenciesbecause of their religious beliefs and the court also recognized that the community is stronger and that more children are being helped when religious agencies are allowed to be part of the solution, Becket Fund senior counsel Lori Windham, who argued on behalf of the CSS, said during a press conference on Thursday.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, noted the citys long relationship with the religious agency and explained why it was wrong for the government to fail to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.

CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else, Roberts wrote. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.

In multiple other concurring opinions, justices debated whether the current cases outcomes warrant more action and a potential reversal of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.

In her concurring opinion supported by Kavanaugh and Breyer, Barrett expressed wariness about reversing Smith, but Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas all said Smith should have been overruled.

Several religious liberty groups celebrated the decision while others called for more action on pending cases.

Every child in need of a forever home deserves the chance to be adopted or cared for by a foster family. Thats what it means to keep kids first, Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. The Supreme Courts decision today allows that to continue happening. The government cant single out people of certain beliefs to punish, sideline, or discriminate against them. Were grateful for the good decision today consistent with that principle. And so now is the perfect time for the high court to address a religious freedom question that has been pending for years in Arlenes Flowers, the case of Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman. She has waited far too long for justice now is her time.

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

Original post:

SCOTUS Smacks Down Philly's Attempt To Blacklist Catholic Adoption Organization Over Gay Marriage Opposition - The Federalist

It doesnt take much courage for an American politician to publicly oppose antisemitism. But only under certain circumstances.

If the person or group that stands guilty of hatred of Jews is a conservative, a Republican, or someone who can be tied to the political right, its open season on them. But if its a Democrat or someone who can hide behind the label person of color or a potential victim of Islamophobia, then she can count on woke mobs on social media, pop culture influencers, and partisanship to not only protect her but to also put any potential accusers in the dock as racists.

Thats why Rep. Ilhan Omar and other members of the left-wing Squad have evaded accountability in the past and whats still protecting them as the results of a recent dustup with party moderates indicated.

After a surge in violent antisemitism inspired in no small part by vicious attacks on Israel by members of their partys left-wing, some Jewish Democrats seemed to have had enough. After Omarcomparedthe United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, the 25 Jewish members of the House of Representatives who are Democrats (two others are Republicans), met informally. Their discussion focused on whether it was time to rebuke Omar by name for her latest effort at demonizing the Jewish state, as well as besmirching the United States.

To their credit, 12 of them did so, signing on to a statement that rightly takes her to task:

Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided. Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits ones intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice.

The United States and Israel are imperfect and, like all democracies, at times deserving of critique, but false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups. We urge Congresswoman Omar to clarify her words placing the U.S. and Israel in the same category as Hamas and the Taliban.

Considering that Omar already traffickedin antisemitic tropes, is anopen supporterof the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and had promoted a narrative about Israels birth on the floor of the House last month that made it clear she thought one Jewish state on the planet was one too many, a call for her to clarify her words was a pathetically weak response. If she were a Republican, theres little doubt that Jewish Democrats would demand that, like former Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, or Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga., Omar should be officially censored and stripped of her committee assignments.

But it was arguably better than nothing. Moreover, by stating that her comment reflects deep-seated prejudice and that such false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups, it correctly identified the stakes in the debate.

Still, the fact that the other 13 Jewish Democrats a majority of the caucus refused to sign is an equally clear indication that even among Jews, support for Israel among Democrats is on the decline.

Omar subsequently issued what she said was aclarification, claiming that her remarks were taken out of context. What she said was part of a series of questions to Secretary of State Antony Blinken about her support for the International Criminal Court.

Omar had thanked the Biden administration for dropping sanctions former President Donald Trump had slapped on those responsible for what he had correctly labeled as antisemitism, while criticizing it for opposing the ICCs attempts to single out both Israel and the United States for committing war crimes during anti-terror operations.

But this is a distinction without a difference. Omars support for the ICCs attempts to criminalize Israels self-defense against Hamas terrorism is just as appalling in context as it is when seen on its own.

What followed was a replay of the last House dustup over Omars antisemitic bombast in 2019. House Democratic leadership led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi did rebuke Omar for her initial statement, but in the same breath also accepted her non-apology, with no thought to throwing her off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the way theyve done to Republicans who make extremist statements. Then Pelosi quickly backpedaled and insisted on CNN that Democrats did not rebuke Omar.

Yet rather than those silent 13 Jewish Democrats being criticized fornotspeaking up against Omar, it was the ones whodidsign the statement that found themselves under attack for supposedly persecuting her.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is made up of nearly half of all House Democrats, issued a statement in support of Omar, who is part of the groups leadership. Jayapal, speaking in the name of all progressives, said those holding Omar to account were part of a bad faith effort to attack a black, Muslim woman, and endangering her and her staff.

Despite her clarification, Omar was far from repentant and labeledthe 12 Jews who dared to call her out as being guilty of Islamicphobic [sic] tropes and subjecting her to constant harassment and silencing.

That was seconded by others on the left, including fellow Squad members Reps.Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who had joined Omar on the House floor to falsely accuse Israel of committing war crimes. A tsunami of abuse on Twitter was also directed at the Jewish 12.

To read the responses to the statement on Omar is to understand why so many Jewish Democrats were reluctant to speak out. In doing so, even in the most restrained fashion, the 12 were widely denounced for demonstrating racism and white privilege, and for allegiance to Israel.

The exchange showed a lot had changed since early 2019, when it was Omar who was put on the defensive, at least for a short while, after claiming that Jews were buying congressional support for Israel (Its all about the Benjamins). Even then, Omar easily escaped being censured by the House and was soon lionized by the left, including pop-culture influencers among the late-night TV comedians like Stephen ColbertandTrevor Noah, as an innocent victim of persecution from Trump.

But after the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and widespread acceptance of its toxic ideological baggage of critical race theory and intersectionality, which falsely labels Israel and the Jews as white and colonialist oppressors of people of color, Omars rants are now viewed part of mainstream discourse. Just as the attacks on Israel for defending itself against Hamas terror from Gaza were far greater this year than they were during the last such fighting in 2014, so, too, Omar and her progressive allies are also on firmer ground in Democratic circles.

Since she and the rest of The Squad landed in Washington three years ago (with more joining the club in January), many believe they have gotten far more attention than they deserve considering their non-existent legislative accomplishments. Still, this episode illustrates just how much influence she and her friends have acquired and the way the Black Lives Matter movement has given a permission slip to antisemitism.

In that short time, Omar and company have done more to establish antisemitic stereotypes and libels in mainstream discourse than extremist right-wingers could have accomplished in decades.

We already knew about the deep divide in the Democratic Party about support for Israel one that is growing wider as a new and more leftist generation bought into intersectional myths. What were seeing now is the price that those in the center of that party will have to pay if they continue to oppose the mainstreaming of antisemitism.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

Original post:

If Ilhan Omar Was A Republican, She'd Be Another Marjorie Taylor Greene - The Federalist

Ladies and gentlemen: The story you are about to see is true, declared the introduction to the classic television program Dragnet. All we want are the facts, maam, asserted police officer Joe Friday during his investigations. True stories; just the facts: it seems so straightforward, doesnt it? Not when American social studies curricula are concerned.

I teach my students that [Thomas] Jefferson sat there and wrote all men are created equal, but he made his money off plantations, said Jocelyn Foshay, a middle school social studies teacher in Dallas, according to a recent Washington Post article. I give the students the facts and let them draw their own conclusions, she said. Thats what learning is. The Post loved Foshays line so much, they featured it again in a June 6 editorial, claiming she was articulating a core principle of pedagogy that should be animating the debate about how history is taught.

Advocates of incorporating critical race theory into curricula argue they are on the side of truth, facts, and history. The Southern Poverty Law Centers grade-school curriculum is explicitly called Teaching Hard History, the implication being that some history, if difficult to learn about, is the hard, cold truth.

History is not rainbows and unicorns, Foshay told the WaPo. But you can look at the twisted and the cruel and still take pride in how far the country has come. Conservative efforts to reject the 1619 Projects curriculum, in turn, are labeled misguided attempts to keep true history from Americas youth.

There are at least two problems here. The first is simply that much of the history offered by the 1619 Project and similar critical race theory initiatives is simply wrong. The second is that what teachers choose to cover with their limited time with students will reveal what biases and agendas that educator has related to history.

As I noted in an earlier Federalist article, professional historians have called the 1619 Project a very unbalanced, one-sided account, wrong in so many ways, not only ahistorical, but actually anti-historical and a tendentious and partial reading of American history. Fact-checkers for the project were ignored and sidelined, which says something about their commitment to factual history.

Scholar Peter W. Wood summarizes some of the more egregious errors in his book 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project:

It is not true that the arrival of slaves on the White Lion was the beginning of chattel slavery in America, where it was widespread before Columbus, or in Virginia, where those slaves may have become indentured servants once debarking in the Chesapeake. It is not true that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery. It is not true that cotton production was the foundation of American wealth in the nineteenth century, or that the plantations were the guiding model and origin of American capitalism. It is not true that Lincoln was a racist hell-bent on sending blacks back to an Africa they had never seen and that could not be considered their home.

The response of 1619 Project authors and advocates to these criticisms has been either to ignore complaints regarding historical accuracy, to accuse such detractors of fear, racism, or bigotry, or to claim that 1619 Project efforts are fake but accurate. That ostensibly means that even if some details are erroneous, the larger project and its significance remain relevant.

Moreover, Forsays reductionist comment denigrating Jefferson for profiting from slavery is so blinkered it borders on absurdity, given that the Virginia polymath was responsible for, among other things, the seminal Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; founding the University of Virginia; abolishing the slave trade while president; and helping establish the Library of Congress. Theres no time to discuss that, however, when youre a teacher who has explicitly stated your plans to focus on teaching students about systemic racism.

As a former high-school history teacher myself, Forshays patently derogatory and prejudicial approach to the Framers leads into the even more salient problem with the 1619 Project and other critical race theory initiatives: that these ideological programs are imbalanced and incomplete. The reason is that when professionals be they grade-school educators or historians claim they are presenting just the objective facts, they are being disingenuous and even manipulative about the broader field of historical study.

Heres why: many, many historical data points can be taught for any given subset of American, European, or global history. For almost any historical topic we seek to understand, there are countless books and endless reams of primary documents or artifacts that can be considered and analyzed.

Thus even if we talk about the history of the American Civil War, we can approach it from the perspective of military, social, cultural, economic, political, religious, sexual, or racial history. I wrote my undergraduate thesis just on the topic of the black religious experience during the Civil War, and I barely scratched the surface of the available data.

In truth, every educator and historian must make critical judgments about what facts he or she will include in books or lesson plans, and how those groups of facts fit into some broader narrative. Even when critical race theory advocates prioritize true historical data, they are often citing what supports their specific pedagogical and ideological agenda, and often ignoring data that does not fit it.

To some extent, this is inevitable, even for the most professional history teachers who aim to be unbiased and fair. Each teacher has an idea of what history means and why its important, and teachers leverage whatever data will substantiate their case.

But what is particularly pernicious is to pretend history educators are not actually involved in this fundamentally subjective pedagogical process, but, as critical race theory activists erroneously claim, replacing earlier historical narratives that were flatly erroneous. What is really going on is not replacing error with truth, but foregrounding some data (typically the experience of persons of color or other marginalized groups) at the expense of others (typically of many white Americans).

Theres not anything essentially wrong with spending more time discussing racial or social history. If done professionally and factually, its still history. But it also means students will get less of other forms of history (typically political, military, religious, or economic), many of which are necessary to understand their nations story as it relates to their duties as citizens.

It also means, in the case of critical race theory, that educators elide an older, traditional way of understanding of America as a remarkable, unprecedented socio-political experiment that brought great good to its citizens and in certain respects changed the world for the better. Instead, America is accused of being systemically racist, even in her founding documents and political ideals.

In their widely lauded book, The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders Worldview, renowned, award-winning historians Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese note:

Today, almost everyone views slavery as an enormity and abolition as a moral and political imperative. Yet as recently as two or three hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of civilized, decent people would not have agreed: Indeed, they would have found such notions surprising.

Indeed, I would imagine students learning under critical race theory curricula will not learn that in 1860, American Indians owned approximately 5,000 black slaves, or that there were black American slaveholders, or even that cannibalism, torture, and human sacrifice was common among American Indian and African peoples. The Genoveses thus continue: the historically appropriate question is: What, after millennia of general acceptance, made Christians and, subsequently, those of other faiths judge slavery as an enormity not to be endured?

The answer to that question is surely complex and multi-faceted. I would however argue that it was something in Christianity itself, and perhaps even something in the documents and beliefs of the founding generation of the American political experiment, that led human opinion to slowly coalesce into agreement about slavery during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Yet to argue such a case would imply there was truly something of unprecedented value in Christian, and perhaps even Western civilization, given that the idea of human rights originated in the West, and has only become accepted across the globe in the last century. To consider such hypotheses would by extension expose the error and hypocrisy of critical race theory proponents, given that certain identitarian victim classes were sometimes the victimizers.

As far as critical race theory is concerned, its never simply just the facts. Often its not even facts at all.

Casey Chalk is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelor's in history and master's in teaching from the University of Virginia and a master's in theology from Christendom College.

Read the rest here:

Why It's Impossible To Teach History Only Using 'The Facts' - The Federalist

Fourteen-year-old Jolene Grover went to a school board meeting wearing a Woman is Female t-shirt to call out her district for prioritizing boys wants over girls needs in its new transgender policies. The eighth-grader joins teachers and parents in fighting Loudoun County, Virginias proposed policies that would allow students to use whichever locker room corresponds with their self-described gender identity rather than their biological sex.

During her speech at a school board meeting, Grover argued the new policies are dangerous and rooted in sexism and could lead to harassment or assault, exclaiming, You do this in the name of inclusivity while ignoring the girls who will pay the price. She further noted the existing harassment and bad behavior by junior high boys, telling the board, Now, boys are reading erotica in the classroom next to girls, and you want to give them access to girls locker rooms.

Two years ago, I was told policy 1040 was just an umbrella philosophy and you werent going to allow boys into the girls locker rooms, Grover said of the proposed change. But here you are doing just that.

Everyone knows what a boy is even you, Grover continued, pushing back against the idea that identity is ever-changing. When woke kids ask me if I was a lesbian or a trans boy because I cut my hair short, it should tell you these modern identities are superficial.

Last year, due to potentially harmful policies considered in the school district, Grovers concerned mother took her out of the Loudoun County public school system and has been homeschooling her. Grover joins many Loudoun County residents standing against the school districts radical proposed policies in the aftermath of gym teacher Tanner Crosss suspension and reinstatement for his stated refusal to lie to students about whether boys can be girls.

Paulina Enck is an intern at the Federalist and current student at Georgetown University in the School of Foreign Service. Follow her on Twitter at @itspaulinaenck

Follow this link:

Loudoun County Eighth-Grade Girl Defends Right Not To Change In Front Of Boys - The Federalist

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a memo to colleagues on Sunday, outlining the nations crises six months into Biden pursuing his agenda with unified control of the federal government.

Operation Warp Speed has brought our country back from the brink, McCarthy wrote, trumpeting a pillar of success under the Trump administration, which aggressively sought the development of COVID-19 vaccines in record time and with them, a return to normal. This should be a time when that optimism is met with more opportunity. Instead, our country is in crisis.

McCarthy noted that economic decay has accelerated under the Biden administration, provoked by the extended Democrat lockdowns and exploitation of the pandemic to pass trillions of dollars in spending. Democrats then masked the ensuing economic fallout with expanded unemployment benefits and direct-payment checks as inflation began soaring, exposing the deteriorating health of the U.S. economy.

Americans planning to get back into the office and travel with their families face the highest gas prices in seven years when Joe Biden was Vice President, McCarthy wrote. If they are in the market to buy a car, the sticker shock is forcing them to reconsider or pay significantly more than the asking price.

Gas prices skyrocketed in the immediate aftermath of the five-day Colonial Pipeline shutdown after a ransomware attack in May, handing the young administration, which remains dedicated to the advancement of the progressive Green New Deal agenda, its first energy crisis.

Seventeen states declared a state of emergency, and 14 reported gas outages. While the pipeline came back online, gas prices have remained high through Memorial Day and are expected to stay elevated to their pre-Trump levels through the summer.

Without mentioning it explicitly by name, McCarthy also took a swipe at the Biden administrations gift to Russia in the form of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline to carry Russian fuel into Germany, eroding U.S. leverage in energy diplomacy.

The price shocks, McCarthy wrote, are in part fueled from a wave of cyber-attacks that have knocked out gas and food supplies. Rather than use the American government to confront these threats, the Biden administration is rewarding Russian energy companies and Chinese-owned technology companies.

The Biden administration backed off bans of the Beijing-backed apps TikTok and WeChat last week.

Meanwhile, major metropolitan crime has terrorized American residents while left-wing animosity toward police remains high and migrants flood the border, McCarthy emphasized.

In addition to the economic uncertainty, American communities are experiencing historic increases in violent crime, McCarthy wrote, poking at Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been tasked with handling the migrant crisis and laughs whenever shes asked if she plans to visit the border. The Democrats have responded standing with calls to defund the police and open our borders. In fact, the border crisis has led to terrorists trying to enter our country. The Administrations response: laughter.

View original post here:

McCarthy To Members Of Congress: 'Our Country Is In Crisis' - The Federalist

Sen. Ted Cruz, like any American who has been on an airplane in the past few months, has seen the signs and heard the constant warnings that federal law requires that you wear a mask on flights. And hes had enough.

The last I checked under our constitutional system if federal law requires it then it is appropriate for the United States Congress to make that determination, Cruz said in a congressional hearing. Because the only way something becomes federal law in this country is if Congress passes a law and its signed by the president.

The federal mask mandate on public transportation, which was enacted Feb. 1 and was set to expire May 11, was recently extended until September. Failure to comply can result in fines starting at $250 and increasing up to $1500.

Cruz said he was disheartened by the politicization of the CDC and the deeply troubling emails from Dr. Fauci that too often engaged in politics rather than science. He argued that the CDCs latest guidance that vaccinated people do not need to wear masks should apply to airlines.

Cruz pointed out the hypocrisy of vaccinated government officials not needing to wear masks while federal mandates force vaccinated airline passengers wear them:

Sen. Fisher and I are sitting as close as we would be sitting if we were sitting on an airplane. Were not wearing a mask and indeed not a single senator in this hearing room is wearing a mask; not a single Democrat, not a single Republican is wearing a mask, because shock of all shocks: science actually means something and vaccines work. This mandate right now is hurting the aviation industry because it is depressing demand for commercial aviation.

Cruz said that in a recent 11-hour flight to Israel, flight attendants woke passengers up if their masks fell even slightly below their noses while sleeping.

This is performative theater. This is not science, this is not keeping anyone safe, Cruz said. One way to encourage people to be vaccinated is for their actually to be a difference in what you can do after youve been vaccinated. And I think repealing this requirement and allowing people who have been vaccinated to choose not to wear a mask on an airplane would increase demand, increase travel, and would tie the policy to the science.

Maggie Hroncich is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College.

See the rest here:

Ted Cruz Slams Airline Masking Laws As 'Performative Theater' - The Federalist

Just in time for Flag Day, New York Times reporter Mara Gay dragged the American flag into the race conversation, calling it disturbing to see dozens of American flags and instead arguing we must separate America from whiteness. The New York Times simply claimed her comments were taken out of context.

Gays attitude showcases an urgent need to revisit the meaning of the American flag in our national conversation. Flag Day provides the opportunity to do just that.

On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a resolution describing the first official American flag. Resolved: that the Flag of the United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white, it said, that the Union be thirteen stars, white on a blue field, representing a new constellation.

The design conveyed two new meanings: states independence but also unity. Gone were the 13 British colonies. Replacing them were 13 American states symbolized by the flags stars. Often depicted in a circle, this new constellation symbolized union by showing no state was more important than another.

Our flag still means unity today. It doesnt represent the president or one political party. It stands for the union of our now 50 states into one nation, and every American who is a part of it.

Missing from the Continental Congresss 1777 flag declaration, however, was the meaning of the colors. The delegates didnt reflect on what red, white, and blue meant in 1777; they were too busy managing the chaos of a two-year-old war.

But after the last major battle of the Revolutionary War in 1781, Americans had developed a deep familiarity with the cost of freedom. When Congress issued the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, which featured an eagle flying independently with a red, white, and blue shield, it defined the flags colors for the first time.

The colours of the pales [stripes] are those used in the flag of the United States of America, the Journal of the Continental Congress recorded in 1782. White signifies purity and innocence. Red [means] hardiness and valour and Blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice.

The congressional delegates knew 6,800 soldiers had died in battle and another 17,000 of disease. They had observed valor from heroes like Capt. John Paul Jones, who refused to surrender to the British with the vow, I have not yet begun to fight!

When they defined the flags red stripes, they also knew of the courage of everyday heroes such as Peter Salem. Salem is credited with fatally shooting Major Pitcairn, the British officer in command at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. Now, he is depicted in the large painting of the Battle of Bunker Hill hanging in the U.S. Capitol.

Congress was familiar with Phillis Wheatley, whose poems were well-known among her contemporaries, published in both a book and newspapers. She defined race not by skin color but by a shared hope for liberty. When she described America as the land of freedoms heaven-defended race, she captured the purity of the cause of liberty, reflected in the flags white stripes.

The congressional delegates knew spies had risked their lives to pass along intelligence for the cause. One spy was James Armistead, who embodied the vigilance and perseverance behind the color blue by infiltrating British Gen. Charles Cornwalliss command to keep watch for the Continental Army. Armistead gave Gen. Lafayette crucial information about the British plans at Yorktown, the Revolutions final battle.

In addition to representing the colors red, white, and blue, Salem, Wheatley, and Armistead have one other color in common. They were all black Americans. Each had been a slave but became free. Each believed in the first American flag and wanted America to throw off the tyranny of King George III and begin a more perfect union as the United States. Each wanted to see other slaves become free, too.

The meaning of the flag and its colors have not changed since 1777 and 1782. Our problem today is a lack of perspective, knowledge, and appreciation about the flag and the rich history of liberty it represents.Instead of emphasizing unity and what we have in common, the far left focuses on dividing people into groups, defining people as oppressors or victims based on their skin color, and canceling or censoring opponents.

The fact that American flags held by Trump supporters triggered a New York Times reporter is proof of this division, the opposite of the flags symbolism of unity. Rather than canceling her, remind your children, teachers, pastors, business associates, and friends of the flags meaning and the heroes who embodied its virtues. And wave the American flag proudly, on Flag Day and every day.

Read more:

No, The American Flag Isn't Racist. It's A Symbol Of Unity We Need Now - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Assistant Editor Kylee Zempel and Senior Editor Christopher Bedford join Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss this week in politics including Democrat infighting over Rep. Ilhan Omars tweets comparing Hamas to the U.S. and Vice President Kamala Harriss botched responses to questions about the border crisis.

On the left, at the end of the day, theyreally do have a have a hard time figuring out what it is they like about the United States of America, Jashinky said. And when you sort of lose that foundation for your politics, its really hard to have a coherent politics.

These guys really do hate the country which makes them very different from a lot of the radical movements, Bedford said.

While infighting is nothing new, Zempel said she doesnt thinkIlhan Omars ideas are mainstream.

I dont think theyre readily adopted by the Democratic Party, Zempel said. You have these fringe movements, obviously, that have gained traction, infiltrated highereducation, lower education, and our media landscape, but I dont think they represent where a lot of Democratic votersand even candidates are in the rest of the country.

Listen here:

Read more from the original source:

Democrat Infighting Over Israel Exposes The Left's Incoherent Politics - The Federalist