Daily Archives: January 30, 2022

After news broke last spring that the University of Pittsburgh is using aborted babies for taxpayer-funded medical research, often in barbaric experiments, Pitt asked an independent firm to conduct an investigation into their researchers compliance with state and federal laws. The findings of that investigation were released last week, but the report arguably raises more questions than it answers.

Hyman, Phelps and McNamara (HPM), the D.C.-based law firm hired to conduct the regulatory assessment, said they found Pitts academic research with human fetal tissue to be fully compliant with applicable laws. But a close reading of the 40-page report shows that HPM intentionally limited the scope of their investigation, allowing investigators to turn a blind eye to some of the most damning allegations related to fetal tissue research.

HPM admits they did not investigate the two university clinics where university researchers source their aborted fetal tissue: the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, where more abortions are performed than in any other hospital in the state.

HPM reasoned they could only investigate activities for which Pitt has regulatory control, and that excludes UPMC because it is a private nonprofit that the university has no role in managing or supervising. This is a significant omission because some of the most atrocious allegations, including labor-induced, partial-birth abortions, occur at UPMC. Investigators instead focused on fetal tissue that is collected and distributed by the Pitt Biospecimen Core (PBC). What investigators failed to mention is that PBC laboratories are located inside UPMC hospitals, including one in the Magee-Womens Hospital.

HPM tried to justify the serious omission with a caveat that even though they cannot hold Pitt responsible for UPMC, they did evaluate whether Pitt satisfied its independent duty to confirm compliance of specified activities related to fetal tissue undertaken by UPMC. In the limited investigating they did do of UPMC, HPM found issues with incomplete forms at UPMC used for obtaining consent from pregnant women to use their babies organs for research. Those forms were included in the report and tell us a lot about how consent is obtained.

HPMs report said they did consider whether there were any conflicts of interest between Pitt and Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, and found there were no illegal arrangements, but did not provide any details on who they spoke to or how they arrived at that conclusion. Yet they felt the need to explain that if Pitt did have contracts with Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, such an arrangement would not be inherently unlawful.

There is no law preventing Pitt from supporting Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania if it chooses to do so, HPM investigators wrote.

There may be no law, but conflicts of interests between Pitt and PPFA do run amok. Not only do Pitt faculty moonlight as abortionists at a PPFA abortion clinic located just six minutes away from Magee-Womens Hospital, but in 2014, Center for Medical Progresss David Daleiden recorded videos of Planned Parenthood associates admitting, there is a tissue bank at Pitt that we offer patients to donate to.

A vice chair of Pitts Institutional Review Board (IRB), Dr. Beatrice Chen, is also the medical director of Planned Parenthood Western Pennsylvania and oversees Planned Parenthoods abortion training fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh. Chen, who alsoservesas Magees director of family planning, was listed in an annual report from Pitt as outreach/contracted care, along with three other doctors for Planned Parenthood Western Pennsylvania.

The IRB, a focus of HPMs investigation, is responsible for reviewing applications to conduct research involving human subjects conducted at the University, yet they simply concluded that Chen had no conflicts or violations.

Pitt has denied it has any procurement relationship with Planned Parenthood.

The study that first caught the publics attention about how taxpayer dollars are being spent involved grafting aborted baby scalps onto the backs of rats, who were then deemed humanized. The study, which was funded by Anthony Faucis National Institutes of Health, includes graphic photos showing little infant hairs growing on rodents backs, the same way they would on a healthy childs head, as well a note about where researchers obtained the baby scalps:

De-identified human fetal tissues at the gestational age of 18 to 20 weeks were obtained from medically or elective indicated termination of pregnancy through Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), with the University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Tissue Bank.

HPMs report contradicts that note included in the study, claiming that of the 31 studies they reviewed, this particular study was one of five that did not obtain fetal tissue from the Pitt Biospecimen Core (located within UPMC hospitals). Instead, HPM says, this particular study obtained their tissue from a commercial tissue supplier, Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR).

If ABR sounds familiar, thats because its the commercial tissue supplier who was exposed for trafficking baby body parts from Planned Parenthood facilities to researchers, and essentially became PPFAs scapegoat when they were first caught selling those baby body parts in 2015.

It remains unclear where the baby scalps for this study were obtained. Were they from ABR, as HPM found, or from UPMC, as the researchers who conducted the study wrote? What is Pitt trying to hide by contradicting its own research?

Although HPM declined to hold Pitt responsible for any activities at UPMC or Magee-Womens UPMC, investigators found primarily technical, but not legal issues with how the hospital obtained consent from women being asked to contribute their aborted babys organs and tissue.

Investigators focused on consent forms they found unsigned, as well as whether the person performing the abortion is involved in obtaining the consent. In focusing on this issue, investigators included the four-page form from Magee-Womens UPMC entitled Consent To Act As a Participant In Research Fetal Tissue Consent Form in their report. Statements on this form entice women with abortion, saying donating their baby may contribute to a new discovery or treatment, calling it a potential benefit to society.

In order to prevent any kind of persuasion, state law requires clinicians to wait 24 hours after a woman has consented to an abortion before presenting her a donation consent form. Yet its entirely possible that a woman who arrives for her appointment but has changed her mind about undergoing an abortion is influenced after a nurse or abortionist consults with her about donation.

Structuring a policy that allows elective abortions for experiments for research and new discovery is a perverse incentive on women and families. This practice must end, said Retired Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen in a statement.

Pitt and the lawyers they hired at HPM clearly have no intention of addressing the initial allegations or answering questions such as: Did Pitt facilities perform illegal partial-birth abortions or infanticide in operating a fetal kidney harvesting program? Instead, the report backfired, raising even more questions that lawmakers and taxpayers must demand answers to.

Those include: Why did investigators choose not to explore the relationship between Pitt and UPMC, in terms of both finances and shared resources? And why is Pitt now contradicting its own research by saying that the tissue grafted onto rats and mice was obtained fromAdvanced Bioscience Resources, not UPMC? Will HPM be releasing the documents or interviews their assessment was based on?

Read the original:

U-Pitt Tries To Explain Away Barbaric Experiments With Aborted Babies - The Federalist

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine and her fellow lefties are ramping up attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices, as they fear the court is getting ready to issue a host of decisions they wont like, most especially a ruling that may overturn Roe v. Wade. Mayer published a pathetic hit piece last week on Ginni Thomas, a long-time conservative activist and the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. Its a dud.

Mayers article, titled Ginni Thomas Crusades: Is Ginni Thomas a threat to the Supreme Court? is full of falsehoods and distortions, consistent with the malicious and error-filled book she co-authored in 1994, Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. Weaving together a mishmash of facts, conspiracies, and comments from dial-them-up liberal judicial ethics experts, Mayer argues that Ginni Thomas political activities and public comments on issues that come before the court require Justice Thomas to recuse himself from those cases.

But Mayer does not really care about judicial ethics. Rather, she wants to construct a case where only Ginni Thomas has to stop her political activity or Justice Thomas has to recuse himself. She invents a new recusal standard that liberal judges dont follow and misrepresents what other judges in fact do in facing the same situation as the Thomases. Call it Jane Mayers version of feminism in 2022: conservative women cant speak out on issues when their husbands are judges.

The relevant law requires a judge to recuse from a case if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned (28 U.S.C. 455(a)). Another provision requires a recusal if the judge knows that a family member has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding (28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(iii). Based on the law, standards, and past precedents, Ginni Thomass political and public policy activities have never in a single instance required Justice Thomas to recuse himself from a case.

It is well-established that a spouses separate political views or activities are no basis for such a recusal. In 2011, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a liberal icon, properly refused to recuse from a challenge to the constitutionality of proposition 8 (regarding same-sex marriage) even though his wife was the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for Southern California (ACLU/SC), which had filed a brief at the district court level in this case, and despite his wife publicly expressing her views on the issue.

My wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them.It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers, Reinhardt wrote in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2011).

Reinhardt also properly rejected the claim that his wife had an interest under section 455 (b), even though the organization had filed an amicus brief in the district court for the case now on appeal before him. Thus, Judge Reinhardt demolished every argument from Mayer and her so-called judicial ethics experts that Ginni Thomas activities or views require Justice Thomas to recuse.

In fact, Stephen Gillers, whom Mayer cites as the gold standard for judicial ethics experts and who rips Ginni Thomas for behaving horribly and hurt[ing] the Supreme Court and the administration of Justice, filed a brief vigorously defending Reinhardt for not recusing:

We are long past the day when a wifes opinions are assumed to be the same as her husbands . . Ms. Ripsons opinions, views, and public pronouncements of support for the district court decision below do not trigger any reasonable basis to question Judge Reinhardts ability to honor his oath of office. A contrary outcome would deem a judges spouse unable to hold any position of advocacy, creating what amounts to a marriage penalty.

Gilllers unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Ginni Thomas permissible conduct and speech is despicable.

Judge Reinhardt also said it is important that judges not recuse themselves unless required to do so, or it would be too easy for those who seek judges favorable to their case to disqualify those that they perceive to be unsympathetic merely by questioning their impartiality. To succumb to Mayers argument would be to institutionalize judge shopping.

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed, overbroad recusal standards would also encourage so-called investigative journalists to suggest improprieties, and demand recusals, for other inappropriate (and increasingly silly) reasons. Mayers smear piece is the embodiment of these concerns.

D.C. Circuit Judge Nina Pillards husband is David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, who has been very outspoken on many hot button constitutional issues. He was particularly outspoken in his opposition to the Trump administration.

In fact, Cole wrote anop-edin May 2019 praising the D.C. district court judges May 26, 2019, ruling inTrump v. Mazars, rejecting President Trumps arguments that he did not have to comply with a congressional subpoena for his tax records. Cole wrote that Trump argued that House committees have no authority to investigate except where their investigation is tied to a specific piece of legislation. But that argument is dead wrong, and the federal courts have properly and resoundingly rejected it.

After the D.C. Circuit three-judge panel ruled against Trump on his appeal of that district court decision, Judge Pillard, a Barack Obama appointee, sat on the D.C. Circuit en banc panel that rejected a petition to rehear the case by the full D.C. Circuit. Judge Pillard voted to let stand the D.C. Circuit panel opinion that ruled the exact way her husband advocated in his 2019 article.

To be clear, Judge Pillard is correct to not recuse herself from cases where her husband has opined on an issue that comes before her court, even if he has specifically commented on a case before she considers it. Coles statements do not provide the basis to question in any way the impartiality of Judge Pillards rulings.

Despite Jane Mayers efforts to impugn the integrity of Justice Thomas for properly not recusing in cases involving issues in which his wife may have commented in the public arena, these examples demonstrate that other judges with spouses in the public policy arena do exactly what Justice Thomas does. The only difference, for Jane Mayer, is that Ginni Thomas is a conservative activist and Justice Thomas is an originalist.

In every example Mayer cites in her article where Ginni Thomas is involved with a group advocating a public policy position or making a filing in the Supreme Court, Ginni Thomas is not a party nor has an interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome of a Supreme Court decision.

In one example, Mayer even falsely claims that Justice Thomas attended a luncheon, Impact Awards. Ginni Thomas emceed the event where awards were given to conservative leaders. Mayer writes that a guest at the luncheon, Jerry Johnson, who was then the president of the National Religious Broadcasters, later recalled that the Justice sat in front of him and was a happy warrior, pleased to be watching his wife running the show.

Mayers claim is 100 percent false. Justice Thomas was not at this Impact Award ceremony. In fact, he has never attended an Impact Award luncheon ceremony. I spoke with Johnson, and he told me Justice Thomas was not at this luncheon. Moreover, Johnson told me that neither Mayer nor anyone from the magazine ever attempted to contact him to ask him if he saw Justice Thomas at this event or made these statements.

There are many more smears in this piece, the most snarky of which may be that Ginni Thomas failed to pass the bar exam. Mayer does not mention that Ginni Thomas passed it on her second try. Many others have failed on the first and passed on the second try, including Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Michelle Obama. But Mayer loves to smear.

I know firsthand how malicious Mayer can be. In Strange Justice, she accused me of violating the Anti-lobbying Act, a criminal law, when I was working on Justice Thomas confirmation in 1991 as a member of the White House Counsels office. Mayer wanted to create the false narrative of a White House willing to do anything to get Thomas confirmed, including me committing a felony. It was 100 percent false and defamatory.

I demanded a retraction and threatened to sue her, her co-author Jill Abramson, and the publisher if they did not strike this false accusation. I received a letter of apology from the publisher on behalf of Mayer and Abramson, and they struck that accusation from the paperback version of their book. Mayer was guilty of making scurrilous and false accusations then, and continues that practice today.

Ginni Thomas is a great patriot. She should continue to engage in her lifelong work of public advocacy, even on issues that could come before the Supreme Court.

This article has been corrected with respect to Judge Pillard and her husbands public discussion of court cases she has adjudicated.

Mark Paoletta is a partner at Schaerr Jaffe LLP. He was a lawyer in the Bush 41 White House Counsels Office and worked on the confirmation effort of Justice Clarence Thomas. He most recently served in the Trump White House as the general counsel of the Office of Management & Budget. You can follow him on Twitter at @MarkPaoletta.

Read more:

The New Yorker Lies Again About Clarence Thomas And His Wife - The Federalist

There is a growing eagerness on the right to talk frankly about the crisis of masculinity in America, and to defend traditional manliness against an ascendant left that wants to destroy it. A robust defense of manliness is salutary, and long overdue. But it requires defining what manliness is, and what it is for, because not everyone on the right seems to know.

For some conservatives, the conversation about masculinity has gone completely off the rails. It has devolved into a mere tough-guy pose. You see it in the tendency of certain high-profile conservative thinkers to deride all classical liberals and libertarians as effete and unmasculine. You see it in the growing penchant among some very-online conservatives to mock the physical appearances of their ideological opponents, and especially in the compulsivetweeting about physiognomy,mostly from anonymous trolls on the right but sometimes from young conservatives who ought to know better.

All of this is profoundlyunmanly, and it gives ammunition to those on the left who would brand traditional masculinity as toxic and dangerous. If were going to defend manliness as good and virtuous and necessary for a healthy republic, then we need to be clear about what it is and what it is not.

Yes, men should be physically strong. They should also exemplify traditional masculine virtues like courage, independence, and assertiveness. But why? Not so they can sh-tpost about how ripped or good-looking they are compared to libs, but so they can protect and defend those who are weak.

That is the organizing principle behind the entire concept of manliness: it is not a style or a pose or an adornment. It is a way of being, of living according to the principle that you are responsible for the welfare of others, and should sacrifice yourself for their sake.

What does that mean in practice? It means stepping in to help those in need, whether its a woman being harassed or a stranger whose car has broken down. It means risking your own safety to protect someone being attacked, instead of just filming the attack on your phone and posting it online like a beta.

It also means marrying and remaining faithful to the same woman your entire life, and raising a family with her. It means working whatever hours and at whatever job in order to provide for that family. It means going to church every Sunday, whether you feel like it or not, to pass your faith on to your kids. It means getting up in the middle of the night to feed a colicky baby. It means taking your two-year-old daughter to swim class and singing all the songs your own sense of dignity be damned.

That is, being a man means laying down your life for others. There is an apocryphal story about Robert E. Lee near the end of Douglas Southall Freemans four-volume biography that illustrates what we should mean when we invoke manliness. After the war, a young mother brings her baby to Lee to be blessed. He takes the infant in his arms, looks at him and then at the mother, and then says slowly, Teach him he must deny himself.

George Washingtons 110rules for civilityalso reflect a similar high principle. Although they concern mostly mundane matters about how to behave at the dinner table or how to comport oneself in public, the unifying theme is consideration and respect for others, even to the point of not showing yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy. (The tough guys who like to tweet about physiognomy should consider Washingtons rule 21: Reproach none for the infirmities of nature, nor delight to put them that have in mind thereof.)

Without the animating ethos that a true man serves and cares for and defends others, especially the weak and vulnerable, the archetypical attributes of manliness physical strength, independence, assertiveness have no real purpose. They are empty gestures that amount to so much vanity. Theres a reason Lon Gautiers Ten Commandments of chivalry included, Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

This is why someone like David French, for example, is unmanly. It has nothing to do with his appearance or demeanor. He is unmanly because heattacks the weak. He targets, repeatedly and viciously, those who are most hated and reviled by our ruling elite: Christians, the working class, conservative families whoobject to their children being taught critical race theory in school, or do not want their kids exposed to Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library.

These are the people French should be fighting to protect, even at great cost to himself. But instead hedenigrates and scorns themfor accolades and rewards from the powerful, who have rewarded him indeed. French, then, exemplifies an ancient species of unmanliness better recognized by its common name, cowardice.

I single out French because he has lately weighed in on this matter,intentionally misrepresentingthe rights defense of manliness as a dangerous cult of toughness focused on Donald Trump and the most shallow stereotypes of manliness imaginable. He takes particular aim at a piece by Hillsdale Colleges David Azerrad, whowrote in 2018that Trump might not be manly in the way a soldier who charges into battle is manly, but Trumps manliness is that of a man who is not afraid to say out loud what others only whisper and to incur the wrath of the ruling class for doing so.

Azerrad is of course correct. Trump might not be a paragon of manly virtue, but his willingness to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the weak is indeed manly, and deserving of praise.

So is Sen. Josh Hawleys willingness tospeak candidlyabout the need for American men to stop playing video games and watching porn, and embrace responsibility and family life. For his trouble, the corporate press has held him up as an avatar of toxic masculinity. No wonder: real manliness of the kind Hawley promotes is everything the left stands against, which is why they want to destroy it.

So lets have no more asinine talk of physiognomy, no more accusations that those who dont agree with our policy preferences are effete or unmasculine. This is not a small thing. If, at this late hour, conservatives cant define manliness and live according to its dictates, then we wont have to worry about owning the libs anymore, because the republic is finished.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

More:

If You Want To Defend Manliness, You Must Know What It Means - The Federalist

The Nebraska legislature passed a resolution on Friday calling for an Article V convention of states, making it the 17th state to do so.

After considering it for the past year, the unicameral body approved the measure in a 32-11 vote, with six senators abstaining or absent. According to the resolution, the Nebraska legislature seeks to call a convention limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

The application also comes with a five-year sunset clause, which notes that the legislature will rescind the measure by Feb. 1, 2027 if efforts to call a convention before then fail.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures are permitted to call a convention to propose amendments to the nations founding document without the approval of Congress. Two-thirds of states (34) are required for a convention to be called, with three-fourths of states (38) necessary for any amendment proposed to be ratified.

The alternative method, and the only one used thus far, is for Congress to propose amendments. Any amendment successfully passed by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate are then sent to the states, where three-fourths are necessary to ratify.

State Sen. Steve Halloran, who introduced the resolution, celebrated its passage as encouraging, noting the bills success shows thatwe respect the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers when it comes to states having equal footing with the federal government.

Nebraska is the second state to call for an Article V convention this week, after the Wisconsin legislature successfully passed a resolution on the matter on Tuesday.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

See original here:

Nebraska Becomes 17th State To Call For Article V Convention Of States - The Federalist

The 2022 agenda for House Republicans may be out of touch with the current political moment, but at least they can say theyre trying. Over on the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the leader of the Senates Republican conference, has announced hes not even putting out an agenda for 2022.

According to reporting by Axios last month, McConnell told a room full of donors, lobbyists, and in-cycle senators that he would not be putting forward an agenda outlining the priorities for his conference should Senate Republicans regain a majority in 2022. When asked by CNN last week what the GOP agenda would be in a potential majority, McConnell responded, That is a very good question and Ill let you know when we take it back. He went on, This midterm election will be a report card on the performance of this entire Democratic government, the president, the House, and the Senate.

In other words, McConnell and GOP senators seem prepared to run solely on a platform detailing how bad the other guy is, and that scrupulously and intentionally avoids discussing what they intend to do about it.

In fairness, this is not completely irrational. Never interfere with an enemy when hes in the process of destroying himself, as the old war adage goes. With their class-shaming Covid protocols, woke militancy, endless race-baiting, and radical cultural crusading, Democrats seem intent on doubling down on an agenda that is turning off Americans in droves.

According to Gallup, voters are turning to Republicans in historic numbers. This doesnt seem to be because Republicans have done anything noteworthy. All theyve done is successfully appear marginally less insane.

What McConnell likely means by Ill let you know is that K Streets concerns will be satisfied. Wall Street will get what it needs, as will the corporate industry titans, including the Big Tech firms. So will the defense industrial barons, who will find every military adventure they engage in, regardless of merit, fully funded and shielded from criticism, much less debate. He doesnt have to say it out loud. When the GOP had no stated agenda, this is always the result.

As they approach 2022, the Senate GOP appears to be relying on their decades-old governing philosophy: wink at the status quo while promising youll keep it from getting worse. The problem, however, is that the same phenomenon that is pushing voters into the arms of the GOP the facts that peoples lives are being ruined, their livelihoods upended, and the fundamental nature of individual liberty distorted by Democrats in both the public and private sector is likewise raising the stakes for whats expected of the GOP.

As more voters turn to Republicans in desperate hope theyll make the beatings stop, Republicans have to commit to doing it. Simply promising to defend the status quo wont cut it this time, particularly for new voters who have no long-held attachment to the party.

The multi-directional onslaught unleashed on voters by Democrats, public health tyrants, and the corporate sector requires a bold and kinetic response from Republicans.

Joe Biden and the Centers for Disease Control are not going to stop issuing cultish, draconian, class-shaming, and completely un-scientific Covid restrictions unless Congress refuses to fund them. School children, under the guise of critical race theory, will still be told their skin color is what makes them worthy unless the abetting federal funding prohibits it. The price of consumer goods will continue to climb until Congress addresses the systemic issues in our monetary policy and supply chains.

Americas leading corporations will still willingly entangle themselves with genocidal Chinese communists unless it is made painful for them to do so. Big Tech will continue to tyrannize small businesses and de-platform Republican elected officials (and millions of others) from the public square unless Congress makes changes to current laws and passes new ones.

Moreover, the left has a grip on major federal institutions, not to mention universities and major cultural entities all over the country. Its laughable to think their relentless march will stop simply because McConnell now runs the Senate instead of Schumer. Rather, it will take creative lawmaking and sustained pressure from congressional majorities to even begin to turn the tide.

But! the immediate retort from Very Smart People goes, Biden will veto whatever Republican majorities may send to him. So this entire exercise is pointless. Instead, House congressmen are suggesting they should work with Biden on immigration as if Biden would support any legislation that doesnt contain massive amnesty. Or find ways to cooperate on other goals, as Sen. Lisa Murkowski recently pondered, like making Social Security more sustainable.

Its true, the Biden White House will likely veto anything that comes out of a Republican-controlled Congress. To that, I say, good! Let Biden veto whatever he wants. The voters will be much better served by forcing clarification on the major issues plaguing millions of Americans around the country than some half-baked compromise on Social Security that robs future Peter to pay present Paul, inevitably shields the Boomers from sacrifice, and ultimately changes nothing. Or worse, a massive amnesty deal.

Although establishment Republicans love to mock the call to fight on behalf of the voters, sustained and focused action, even when ultimately unsuccessful, resonates with voters more than the usual establishment game of tut-tutting conservatives as unserious, lowering expectations through the floor, and pivoting instead to discussions of whats possible. (Which is, predictably, always code for K Street wants.)

In a sense, though, this is broader than McConnell. Unlike the House, where majorities rule and the speaker has an iron grip on what comes to the House floor, the Senate is uniquely permissive.

Most of McConnells authority over the floor is deferred to him by the GOP conference. Each senator has the ability to proceed to whatever legislation he or she wants (and get at least one vote) when other matters arent pending. And each senator has the ability to push back against the grip McConnell and his predecessors have exerted over the Senate floor, internally, and by leveraging the power of their consent.

McConnell may have no agenda and an ill grasp of the political moment, but that doesnt mean his conference must. Whether or not a future Republican Senate can rise to the task of actually meeting voter concerns providing even the most baseline function of a legislative body in letting voters see their concerns addressed, discussed, and considered in the Senate is a prerogative that sits equally on the shoulders of Republican senators.

Every election is always tagged with the most important election of our lifetimes, but this one does feel more burdened. Working-class voters are in a power struggle against elite forces who hate them. Democrats and their handmaidens in local and state government have planted themselves firmly between living freely and living according to mandates, rules, and social credit. In Washington, theyre literally coming up with ways to jail their political opponents.

This is not a status quo that can be sustained. Republicans cannot simply rally voters with a promise not to make it worse. Republicans cannot, in other words, do what they have largely always done with a Senate majority: set it on a shelf, polish it, and admire it from afar while checking off a Beltway-driven agenda designed solely to protect incumbents.

Rather, a majority must be used. Not only for the purpose of giving new GOP voters a reason to stay, although that is a benefit, but because its the right and urgently necessary thing to do. Democrats have so aggressively overstepped, which may send their congressional majorities over a cliff, but it wont stop their allies.

The lefts institutions and public health bureaucrats arent going to simply stop torturing us because they feel like it. If Senate Republicans cannot find it in them to stand up for their voters now, when the stakes are so perilous and the moment so fraught, then what are they good for?

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist's senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Mike Lee. She also served as director of policy services for The Heritage Foundation.

See the article here:

Republicans Plan To Win Back The Senate, Then Do Nothing, Per Usual - The Federalist

A New Jersey gym owner who refused to close his gym under the states Democrat governors lockdown order was sentenced to one year probation.

Ian Smith, co-owner of Atilis Gym in the Philadelphia suburb of Bellmawr, kept his business open to allow residents to maintain a high level of baseline health in the face of a virus disproportionately killing obese people.

We got one year probation for the crime of taking our doors off to prevent government goons from locking us out of our gym, Smith announced on Twitter Thursday after the sentencing hearing. [Atilis Gym] is open and will remain open at any cost.

Smiths decision has indeed come at a high cost. According to the Post Millennial, Smith was fined $1.2 million and vowed to stay open anyway as what he described as a f*ck you to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy. Smith also said his business license was revoked in August 2020. That same month, a meta-analysis of studies probing the risks of Covid to those who carry excess weight revealed those with obesity were at least 113 percent more likely to be hospitalized, at least 74 percent more likely to need intensive care, and nearly 50 percent more likely to die.

In March of last year, Smith began to offer free memberships to those who did not take the Covid vaccine to enhance their metabolic health amid a circulating virus that especially threatens the unhealthy. Just two weeks prior, the CDC published data showing nearly 80 percent of those hospitalized with the novel Wuhan coronavirus were overweight or obese. Smith announced his incentive a day after Krispy Kreme offered free donuts to individuals who showed their vaccine card, promoting a complacency with the normalization of sedentary lifestyles incentivized by government officials who implemented lockdowns.

We believe in health the real way exercise, good diet, plenty of Vitamin D, Zinc, and an environment to destress, Smith wrote.

In an era of an endemic virus with new variants poised to circumvent vaccines with waning immunity, confronting the American obesity epidemic has become even more important.

The American population entered the coronavirus epidemic unhealthy to begin with. The latest CDC data available on nationwide BMI scores precedes a pandemic where 42 percent of American adults, by one estimate from the American Psychological Association (APA), reported undesired weight gain. Of those adults, the average gain was 29 pounds. In the days leading up to Covids inception, less than a third of Americans were at a healthy weight, according to the CDC. More than 42 percent qualified as obese.

In stark contrast to First Lady Michelle Obamas efforts to confront the underlying epidemic brewing out of control 10 years ago, the Biden White House appears unconcerned about Americans health beyond the Fauci-prescribed measures of endless vaccines and mask-wearing.

When asked at the press briefing Thursday why the administration has not promoted healthier lifestyles in the Covid era, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, Whats most important to note is what we know is most effective, which is getting vaccinated, getting boosted, wearing a mask.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

The rest is here:

New Jersey Gym Owner Sentenced To Probation For Saving Lives - The Federalist

Over last weekend, attorneys for Carter Page filed responses to motions to dismiss filed by the FBI and eight agents involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that led to the government illegally obtaining four surveillance warrants to spy on Page.

In November 2020, Page, who had briefly served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump campaign, sued the defendants in a D.C. federal court alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Patriot Act, and the Privacy Act. In response, the government and the individual defendants argued Pages claims were time-barred or that Page had no legal grounds on which to sue. Pages responses counter those arguments while providing five key take-aways.

With Spygate developments few and far between, it is easy to forget the breadth and depth of the scandal. The briefs docketed on Saturday in Pages lawsuit against the FBI and the agents involved in obtaining the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrants serve as an important refresher of what our government did to an innocent man in the hopes of getting Trump. As Pages brief against the individual defendants noted in its opening, this case is extraordinary because they were not mere field agents bending the rules to pursue criminals, but rather the highest level FBI executives.

Even the case name, Page v. Comey, confirms the truth of that assertion, with former FBI Director James Comey named as one of the eight defendants. Pages brief details Comeys alleged involvement in the Department of Justice obtaining four FISA surveillance orders against the Naval Academy graduate, stressing that Comey was not merely a supervisory who signed the FISA applications, but was personally involved.

Establishing Comey and the other agents personal involvement proved a key feature of the briefs, because, to avoid dismissal of the complaint, Page needed to show the allegations of the complaint could reasonably support a finding that the individual defendants did more than merely supervise employees who violated Pages Fourth Amendment rights and rights under FISA.

The 70-page omnibus brief addressing the claims against the individual defendants detailed the personal involvement of each. For instance, for the former FBI director, the brief stressed that on or about August 17, 2016, Comey received information from the CIA establishing that Dr. Page was an operation contact for the CIA during the period of 2008-2013.

Comey also knew from a September 7, 2016, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) communique that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server, according to the court filing. Comey nonetheless approved the use of the fabricated Christopher Steele dossier to obtain the FISA surveillance orders, and eventually signed three of the four FISA surveillance applications.

Next named in Pages lawsuit was Andrew McCabe, a former deputy director of the FBI. McCabe was also personally involved in obtaining the illegal FISA surveillance order, according to Pages most recent court filing.

Among other things, McCabe signed the affidavit the FBI submitted in support of the final FISA application. McCabes involvement went further, Pages attorneys argued, pointing out that he hosted an August 15, 2016 meeting with co-defendants Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussing an insurance policy to prevent a Donald Trump election, and he had approved the FISA applications even though he knew they omitted Carter Pages past assistance to the CIA.

The brief next discussed Kevin Clinesmiths involvement in the FISA abuse. Clinesmith, who served as an assistant general counsel in the FBIs Office of General Counsel, falsely told the FBI that Page was never a source. Then, when asked for written confirmation of that representation, Clinesmith altered the text of the email he had received from the CIA liaison, making the email read that Page was not a source.

Clinesmith then forwarded the altered email to the FBI. Clinesmith later pleaded guilty to making a false statement related to this conduct.

Strzok and Lisa Pages involvement in the FISA surveillance scheme received attention next. Strzok, who served at the time as the FBI deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, also knew of the CIAs warning that Clinton had approved a plan to claim Trump had colluded with Russia to distract the public from her misuse of a private server. Strzok also stated an intention to stop Trump from becoming president and discussed an insurance policy to prevent a Trump election.

Lisa Pages personal involvement mirrored that of Strzoks, but in addition she attended a briefing with McCabe, at which Bruce Ohr advised them that Steeles work product was not for the U.S. Government but, rather, was political opposition research for a private political party.

The briefs repeated this process for the remaining individual defendants: Joe Pientka, who served as a supervisory agent on the Crossfire Hurricane team; Stephen Somma, an FBI agent who represented himself as Steve Holt to Page; and Brian Auten, an FBI supervisory intelligence analyst.

Pientka, Carter Page stressed, had falsely certified that the information in the first FISA warrant was verified for accuracy and later failed to correct the application, even after learning in November 2016 from Ohr that Steele was not a reliable source and had been paid to conduct the opposition research against Trump.

The response filed on Saturday also detailed Sommas involvement, noting that he had pushed initially for the FISA warrant. Further, according to Page, Defendant Somma personally provided incomplete, inaccurate, and conflicting information to the DOJ Office Attorney who asked whether Dr. Page had been a source for the CIA.

In fact, according to Page, Somma actually knew he had served as an operational contact for the CIA from 2008-2013, but failed to accurately describe that relationship to others. Somma also did not inform the FISA court that Igor Danchenko, Steeles primary sub-source for his fabricated dossier, contradicted Steeles supposed intel.

The final defendant, Auten, also held personal responsibility for violating Pages Fourth Amendment rights and violations of the Patriot Act, according to Pages lawyer. Auten played an instrumental role along with the agents preparing the FISA applicationsincluding reviewing the probable cause section of the applications.

In preparing the applications, Auten falsely enhanced the credibility of information obtained from Steele, according to Page, writing that information from Steele had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings, although none of Steeles past reporting as an informant had been corroborated and had never been used in any criminal proceedings.

Auten also intentionally failed to disclose the negative feedback that he had received from British Intelligence Service colleagues regarding Steele, according to the court filing, including a caution from Steeles former colleagues that Steele exercised poor judgment and pursued as sources people with political risk but no intel value.

Even with the details noted above and additional ones included in the 100-plus pages of combined briefs filed by Pages legal team this weekend, so much remains unknown because the government holds sole possession of the information. That lack of knowledge, Page argued in his briefs, makes dismissal of his lawsuit at this stage premature.

It is also abundantly clear that there is a trove of currently non-public documents and facts that relate to Dr. Pages claims, which are presently in the exclusive possession of the Individual Defendants and the United States and its agencies, but which will undoubtedly further support and vindicate Dr. Pages claims, Pages attorney wrote.

Then, as a perfect illustration of the point, Pages legal team pointed to the fact that after they initially filed suit in November 2020, additional facts concerning Defendant Clinesmiths role with respect to the alteration of the email were disclosed when the Department of Justice filed its sentencing memorandum in Defendant Clinesmiths criminal prosecution, including internal FBI emails not referenced in the Horowitz Report.

Also unknown at this time is which defendants, if any, leaked information to the press. The brief suggests Lisa Page and Strzok hold responsibility for the leaks, noting that on Monday, April 10, 2017, Defendant Strzok sent [Lisa Page] another text message stating, I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.

Two days later, the brief continued, Strzok sent Defendant Lisa Page a text message to alert her that two media articles were coming out about her namesake [Dr. Page] and that one was worse than the other. Then, later the same week, the Washington Post and the New York Times published articles about Dr. Page and the governments investigation of him, including that FISA warrants were used, with Strzok that weekend texting Lisa Page: article is out! and Well done, Page.

The briefs filed this weekend also stressed that after the FISA warrant was issued, a stream of information about Dr. Page . . . and his supposed status as a Russian agent working to undermine the nation, began to flood the airwaves and the newsstands. The source of that information can only have been the Crossfire Hurricane team, the brief argued.

In addition to Strzok and Lisa Page, in the separate brief Carter Pages legal team filed this weekend in response to the governments motion to dismiss, lawyers claimed that defendants Comey and McCabe also leaked information and records concerning Dr. Page to media outlets, including but not limited to the existence of the FISA warrants, the contents of the warrant applications, and the results of the warrants, that were protected from disclosure under FISA and the Privacy Act.

Without discovery, however, Page lacks the ability to establish the party or parties responsible for the leaks with certainty, which supports his argument that dismissing his claims at this point is premature.

Reading Pages briefs also reminds one of the lopsided battle he faced in trying to clear his name when he went up against the Crossfire Hurricane team. He literally wrote Comey. He reminded the FBI that he had worked with the CIA. He voluntarily submitted to multiple interviews with FBI agents. His lawyer spoke with Clinesmith.

Yet they persisted. It was one individual against the mammoth monstrosity that calls itself the intelligence community.

Now Page is taking on the same monster that is proving itself as regenerative as the mythical hydra. Not only does Page face the federal government, represented by Department of Justice attorneys, but each defendant has his or her own group of powerhouse D.C. lawyers combatting Pages push for justice, leaving Pages small legal team fighting against nine separate teams of defense attorneys.

One wonders who is paying for all those private law firms, and whether it is taxpayers?

While Pages legal team may be outgunned, their briefing proves top-notch, both in its legal advocacy and its ability to point out the absurdity of many of the defendants arguments with a flair that cuts through legal niceties.

Early on, Pages attorneys honed in on the key strategy the defendants seem to have settled onpoint the finger at someone else. Each defendant sought to outdo each other in minimizing their respective roles in the fiasco, the brief noted, each claiming their culpability in deceiving the FISC, unlawfully disclosing information, and violating Dr. Pages rights was too minor to impose civil liability on them. If the individual defendants are to be believed, the brief quipped, these unlawful and false warrants wrote themselves.

As quoted from Ian Fleming in Goldfinger, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time its enemy action, crystalized another point by Pages legal team: that the defendants conduct cannot be put down to mistakes or even sloppiness but creates the reasonable inference that they intentionally caused the violation of Pages rights.

Then, in summing up their argument on behalf of Page, the brief closed by reminding the judge that the FBI unlawfully used the power of the federal government, in the form of secret, anti-terrorism surveillance tools, to violate the rights of an innocent American. It is long past time for the United States to step up to the plate and do right by Dr. Page, the brief closed.

Whether Carter Page will succeed in fending off dismissal of his case against the DOJ, FBI, and litany of Crossfire Hurricane agents will not be known for some time. The defendants will all have a chance to reply to Pages briefing, meaning another nine briefs to counter Pages two court filings.

The district court will then face many tough legal questions, beginning with whether Page waited too long to sue. Next, the court will need to determine whether Page adequately alleged sufficient facts under his various theories of liability and specifically whether each individual defendant holds responsibility for the illegal FISA warrant under an aiding and abetting theory.

Carter Page also presents a unique claim against the federal government under The Privacy Act, arguing that his rights were violated by the inspector general when the IG refused to allow Page to review and respond to the report discussing the four FISA warrants obtained against Page.

Check back later this week for a legal analysis of these and the other issues presented in Page v. Comey. In the meantime, consider what it means to our country that this case even exists.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

See the rest here:

5 Takeaways From The Latest In The Carter Page Spygate Lawsuit - The Federalist

In a recent announcement, College Board expressed plans to make significant changes to the SAT that will go into effect in 2024. The test will be fully digital and shortened from roughly three hours to two. The reading passages will be made shorter and the math section will allow the use of a calculator throughout. In short, the test will be easier for both the testers and the person being tested.

According to College Board, the changes are meant to address concerns with access because of Covid and the lack of equity in the SAT, which some allege favors certain racial and socioeconomic groups. The complaint about equity has led a large number of colleges to stop using SAT scores as part of their admissions. Evidently, College Board is hoping that making the test easier and shorter will narrow these performance gaps and restore the usefulness of the SAT as an assessment for college readiness.

However, by working off false premises, College Board is coming to the wrong conclusion. All these proposed changes will simply lower the standard for everyone, hardly address problems with equity, and make the SAT all the more useless.

Any teacher or data coach who analyzes test results can attest to seeing this kind of logic play out in most state standardized tests. In the beginning, these tests were more challenging and designed to assess higher-level thinking skills. Over time, however, wave after wave of low scores and obvious performance gaps cause the test creators to lower standards dramatically. Finally, the test becomes a pointless hurdle for teachers and students to jump through, inviting calls for a new standardized test that actually says something.

Dumbing down a test is often subtle, but there are a few ways to spot it: make passages shorter with lower reading levels, simplify the math problems, allow a calculator, dictionary, and even provide some basic strategies for working through the test. Along with these changes, the scoring is often needlessly complicated with a series of formulas and algorithms replete with multipliers and random variables to supposedly indicate whether a student meets or masters expectations. Hence, standardized tests usually fill a whole sheet with a multitude of categories, bar graphs, tables, and color-coded labels to communicate a testers final score.

This was the evolution of Texass standardized test, the STAAR, which started in 2013. In its earlier days, it was highly regarded in terms of quality, and many students did poorly on it. These were the days of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), so mass failure on a campus often meant the threat of a school or district receiving a failing grade and being reconstituted. Naturally, this led to wailing and gnashing of teeth among administrators and educators, who were now having to shape up their instruction and pay attention to data.

To make matters worse, the data from STAAR indicated serious gaps between students of different races. Thus, even the more affluent campuses that had relatively high pass rates were still given low marks because the few students who failed were largely students of color. Thus, for the sake of equity, there was an effort among all campuses to teach to the bottom and get these few students to pass while stronger students were largely neglected.

After so many years, though, STAAR scores mysteriously improved. Most students were passing it now, and those who didnt would usually pull it out in subsequent retests. Principals and teachers patted themselves on the back for the improvement, although it was never clear what led to the change. Few people dared to suggest the test itself might have become easier even though this was the most logical explanation. After all, even while STAAR scores were improving, other non-state standardized tests like the ACT and SAT were steadily declining.

Now the SAT is abandoning any pretense of objectivity. Sure enough, the scores on the test will likely rise, gaps between students will likely narrow, and college admissions offices may feel more comfortable using SAT scores to gauge incoming students ability to succeed.

But all this will do is hide the ugly truth: the quality of American education as a whole is declining. Kids are learning less both in the high school and college levels, but the data will indicate otherwise. They may not be able to read very well, write a grammatically correct sentence, or solve most math problems, but their scores indicate that theyre just as smart or smarter than other classes. While there seems to be less of an achievement gap, thats only because weve mostly eliminated the idea of achievement.

All the same, many will buy into the lie and treat this as a cause to celebrate. It lets educators and schools off the hook, encourages students to go to college, and allows College Board to make more money and virtue signal at the same time. If it means students suffer by wasting more time and money in school, so be it. They can brag that they are the best-educated generation in American history.

Real improvement will only come when people are ready to cut through this false narrative, form a sober, truthful assessment of what is happening, and respond accordingly. The SAT and other standardized tests used to help with this by assessing academic ability and offering an opportunity for those of any background to distinguish themselves.

Unfortunately, identity politics has reversed this. Now testing companies like College Board are actively gaslighting the public by keeping them in the dark about how students are really doing. This lulls parents and educators into thinking that their children are fine and that educational reform isnt all that urgent.

But the reality is that improving the quality of learning for all students is quite urgent. The lowering of academic standards is happening everywhere, and the new SAT reflects this. It falls on parents to push back, not only by voicing their concerns to district and campus leaders and electing competent politicians, but by taking on a bigger role in their childrens education and becoming teachers themselves.

By pushing equity over quality, schools and testing companies are essentially admitting defeat. If parents and educators hope to win the battle of hearts and minds on the issue of education, they will have to lead the charge themselves and find a different test to measure todays students.

Follow this link:

Dumbing Down The SAT Sums Up The State Of American Education - The Federalist

It was by sheer happenstance that I stumbled upon the month-old interview clip of Billie Eilish. I paused to watch not because Im a super fan of her music, but because her fresh and natural appearance caught my eye, and her attitudinal change kept my attention. She looked beautiful, and her easy laugh and honest reflections exuded confidence.

Of course, Id seen the once-moody and neon-haired star dressed in old Hollywood glam on the cover of Vogue and at the Met Gala, but this wasnt a single photo shoot or an occasion for one-off fashion experimentation. This was just Billie being herself in front of the camera.

It was Vanity Fairs fifth annual interview with the young star. Each year, the magazine recites the same questions about the artists influences, the size of her following, who her confidants are, and how she feels about her style. Then they merge these videos and catch Eilishs reactions to her old self and current answers. At just 19, a bright and breezy Eilish simultaneously laughed off the follies of herself yesteryear and exposed past insecurities.

Instead of rattling off mega-celebrities when asked who she goes to for advice, Eilish confidently replied its her mom. And instead of hiding behind a grotesque style and cool detachment, the artists cute blonde bob was accompanied by free-flowing laughter. It was lovely.

It was as if the young star, among many other developments in her life, had internalized a truth thats fallen out of favor with many people, especially those on the political left and particularly among Eilishs predecessor millennial generation: Girls, its OK to be beautiful.

A convergence of the Me Too movement, the body positivity movement, multi-wave feminism, the smartphone generation, and the sexual revolution has left women confused, and frankly, its left them uglier.

Its left them uglier not only in attitude weve all seen that from the disgruntled women in p-ssy hats screaming profanities at inanimate government buildings although thats part of it. Theres nothing attractive about misplaced and uncontrolled anger, whether it comes from men or women.

But its also left them physically ugly. This unattractiveness comes in many forms. Sometimes its intentionally unflattering clothing or makeup. Other times its grotesque haircuts, such as bizarre shaven spots that look like a bad lawn-mowing job or nonstop bedhead, or flaunting body hair.

Not to mention, its created aggressive opposition to the appreciation of beauty. Take a look at this Ph.D. in Psychology Today lecturing adults on Why We Need to Stop Telling Little Girls How Pretty They Are.

This is hardly an exhaustive list of this modern defiance because the non-beautiful is always rearing its head in new ways. But like I said, this phenomenon has emerged thanks to quite the confluence of factors.

For instance, body positivity concluded rightly that women of all shapes and sizes should recognize their self-worth. The movement wrongly swung to the extreme of glorifying obesity, such as on the cover of Cosmo and every other major womens magazine and advertisement. Heres obese star Lizzo celebrating more weight gain.

Likewise, the sexual revolution gave a thumbs up to exploitation, and feminism endorsed the masculinization of women and with each drift and deconstruction of beauty, too many women were left looking and feeling less like themselves.

Its something were discouraged from discussing; appreciating beauty or talking about what exactly it is opens one up to accusations of bigotry, sexism, or discrimination. Why are beauty standards so oppressive to women? for instance, or Beauty isnt a dress size! Nonetheless, questions of beauty are philosophical, spiritual, and to some degree eternal, and thus we must consider them.

For starters, we must ask what beauty even is, and by way of a simple dictionary definition thats fairly easy to answer: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit: LOVELINESS, if you ask Merriam-Webster.

Within the simple definition is the implication that theres a distinction between attractiveness and loveliness. One is subjective, the other objective. What gives pleasure to the senses of one person (subjective) might not evoke the same response in another. For proof, look no further than the billions of happy couples across the globe whose spouses range in size, color, shape, and other characteristics. But theres an aggregate of qualities that compose this more objective loveliness, and they cant be reduced to mid-2000s Victorias Secret angels or Barbie doll features.

Its this loveliness that radiated from the beautiful Eilish and can be described in part as physical authenticity. While the norm-defying left tries to define authenticity as a persons identity or whims or feelings, they miss the point of what is truly authentic. They miss the natural beauty of humankind, which manifests when image-bearers of the Creator practice self-control without the undue concealment of their imperfections nor their sexual appeal.

Its in this practical expression of beauty that both the left and the fundamentalist right can pendulum swing so far as to meet on the other side in a full circle. While the left tends to suppress beauty so as not to conform to a patriarchal standard of sex appeal, the fundamentalist religious right tends to react to sexualization with an elevation of the frumpy and androgynous under the banner of modesty.

Thus while many on the left reject conventional beauty standards (often calling them constructs) and desperately try to fit in by standing out and defying norms, the rights disdain for luxury and indulgence can lead them to the same rejection of the beautiful. A religious skepticism of allure and desire can produce a different kind of objectification that leads faithful women to feel that their God-given sexuality is actually a curse.

When we reject these two extremes, we find freedom in the middle. There is freedom in stepping confidently into your natural hair and skin, just as theres satisfaction in hygiene and grooming. Theres freedom in embracing the beauty of a healthy lifestyle, in accepting both the power and responsibility of human sexuality, and in preserving and cultivating beauty in ourselves and others.

Scripture tells us inner beauty is more important than outer because the latter is fleeting, but that doesnt mean God thinks little of physical beauty. If He did, He probably wouldnt have made galaxies, flora, and fauna well never ever see for his own good pleasure. When He created the world and all thats in it, He called it good. He considered it lovely.

Dont let social movements and ugly attitudes shame you for pursuing and appreciating beauty. Its not an unrealistic standard. Its exactly what we were created to be.

See the original post here:

Girls, It's OK To Be Beautiful - The Federalist

It has been two years since the world first noticed people were getting sick and dying from a novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. As the seriousness of the disease became more apparent, policymakers around the world struggled with how to respond.

Eventually, many leaders settled on policies of draconian lockdowns and restrictions in an effort to stop the spread of the virus. As these restrictions dragged on for months and years, some leaders trimmed their sails; some changed course completely. But most policy makers failed to keep in mind the fundamental axiom of governing, most pithily stated by Thomas Sowell: there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.

Now it is becoming clear that most of the policies they chose, like all policy choices, were not consequence-free. Sadly, Americas school children appear to have borne the brunt of their choices.

Politico and other outlets have reported on the disaster of learning loss resulting from pandemic school closures. Unfortunately, this learning loss is concentrated in minority communities that could least afford to suffer these consequences as I, my rocket-scientist brother, and countless others can attest, education is the key to escaping poverty.

The American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health, specifically noting an increase in suicide attempts, as well as soaring rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, loneliness, and suicidality that will have lasting impacts on them, their families, and their communities.

I have been warning the American public about these devastating effects on our children for the better part of two years now. Early in the pandemic, it was obvious to anyone who actually sat down and looked at the data, rather than acting on fear and propaganda, that children were not at risk from this virus nearly to the degree that adults were, never mind older adults with comorbidities, who are overwhelmingly the victims of the disease.

We also knew early on that online learning is not as effective as learning in the classroom. We knew children would disappear from the school system if we went virtual, particularly in minority and underserved communities. We knew that mask mandates, quarantines, and mandatory social distancing would be harmful. Now we have more data proving all of this to be true.

I welcome outfits like Politico and The New York Times recognizing that policies seeking to halt the spread of an airborne virus have had lifelong negative consequences for American children. But that does not absolve them of their responsibility for bringing these consequences about.

For motivations both noble and base, leftist corporate media was a loud, constant cheerleader for the most draconian of Covid responses. From the start of the pandemic, the public health bureaucracy, liberal politicians, and the left in general spread fear, confusion, and lies about the risks of Covid and the consequences of pursuing their lockdown and eradication approach.

At every turn, the leftist media was there cheering them on and helping them squash dissent. For example, when several prominent doctors and scientists authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for protecting the vulnerable but otherwise trying to minimize Covids disruption of everyday life, the architects of our failed response enlisted allies in the media, such as The Washington Post, to discredit the proposal.

Other ideological commitments, such as the unjustified faith that teachers unions have the interests of students at heart, also drove the medias coverage. One thing we have seen in the pandemic is that many teachers unions care about teachers and pursue their desires (especially the desires of the loudest fringes), rather than caring about students.

Indeed, in many areas the teachers unions are the ones who insisted that school go entirely virtual, and resisted with all their will any attempts to resume in-person education. Just recently the Chicago teachers union refused to show up to teach in person, claiming that the risk of Covid was too great. (Would these same teachers be so sanguine if the people responsible for keeping their grocery store shelves stocked acted the same way?).

There, every step of the way, was leftist corporate media, playing up the risks of Covid always while studiously avoiding discussion of how those risks are focused in a relatively small subset of the population and downplaying the risks, now realized, of virtual learning.

Despite the incredible costs these policy makers and pundits imposed on our children, all is not lost. The American people appear to be realizing, slowly, that bureaucrats act in the interests of bureaucrats, not the public, and that unions act in the interests of unions, not the public.

The mass exodus from states that continue to choose restriction over freedom is happening for a reason. The mass exodus from public schools is happening for a reason. Ultimately, Americans always choose liberty over tyranny.

Dr. Ben Carson served as the 17th secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is the founder and chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute.

See the rest here:

Finally Noticing Lockdowns Are Killing Kids Does Not Absolve The Left - The Federalist