Monthly Archives: April 2022

Dear Abby: Im a liberal Democrat and my entire political party is full of insufferable nags. What do I do?!

That was the entire point of New York Times columnist Michelle Goldbergs article this week wherein she fretted that normal Americans are perhaps drifting to the political right because the left has become so indefensibly annoying.

For those who get most of their politics online, this can be what the left looks like a humorless person shaking her head at others insensitivity, she wrote. As a result, an alliance with the countrys most repressive forces can appear, to some, as liberating.

Without saying it outright, Goldberg was getting at the lefts defining qualities today. Its allies have become so miserable, so toxic, so angry and weird that its repulsing voters. They call people racist for any reason at all. They push for the sexualization of children in public schools. And they shut down all discourse that threatens their delicate ideology.

Look whats happening with the Elon Musk-Twitter drama. A billionaire wanted to buy a publishing company not something unheard of and it was an unnecessarily drawn out, messy fight for him to do it because the left wing and Democrats believe they alone dictate what counts as fair discourse.

Goldberg declared the left stagnant, but what she really means is that its miserable. Its stuck in a rut because its activists are singularly motivated by negative emotions now. What do they talk about these days? Persecuting Trump supporters who were in Washington on Jan. 6, Covid as a means of controlling the populace, and equity for anyone who claims to be oppressed (i.e. the Democrat voter base).

When the left becomes grimly censorious, it incubates its own opposition, wrote Goldberg. The internet makes things worse, giving the whole world a taste of the type of irritating progressive sanctimony

She says this like its a problem created by the right, or even unassuming independents who must not be able to distinguish between the online left from the real left. Its not. Its people like Goldberg who wanted to teach children about transgenderism and how it sucks to be white. That people were repulsed by their weird fixations isnt their own fault. Its the fault of the left for being so creepy, unhappy, and maladjusted.

Look at Florida. The hottest controversy there now is whether kindergarten teachers should be able to explain to students what it means to be gender queer. Leftists are adamant that they get to talk about sexual identity with kids. Its dumb. Even a majority of Democrats in that state know its dumb.

Look at the reaction to the district judge in Florida who struck down the airline mask mandate. Leftists are furious that they cant tell people to cover up their noses and mouths anymore (at least for now).

Look at the election of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin. His central campaign theme was that public school kids shouldnt be instilled with the idea that being white is an irredeemable sin. The left nearly needed an exorcism.

Look at your own encounters with these people. The funny thing about left-wingers is that they feel absolutely no reservation about showing up to a social function and popping off with their political opinions on race, sex, and equity.

Any normal person thinks to himself, Id rather not. Leftists dont. They see it as their duty to ensure that everyone knows how they feel (miserable).

You dont like it? Tough.

Goldberg knows her movement is an emotional and mental mess. She just cant bear to break the news.

Theyre always angry. Theyre always upset. Theyve lost their grip. Goldberg could have just said that, but instead, she whined about conservatives and independent Americans who arent into the gross and distasteful things that the movement she belongs to has produced.

In the short term, however, its frightening to think that backlash politics could become somehow fashionable, especially given how stagnant the left appears, she continued.

The left doesnt appear anything. Its undeniably vulgar, and fewer people want to be part of it. Maybe Goldberg should just admit it and stop making excuses for how awful the left-wing Democrat movement is.

Go here to see the original:

It's Not In Your Head: The Left Really Has Become This Miserable - The Federalist

Its only been a couple of days since Elon Musk officially took the Twitter reins completely, and already notable conservative accounts are seeing a remarkable spike in followers. But theres a long road ahead if Musk wants to make the website a haven for free speech, starting with reinstating the account of the 45th president and releasing Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson from Twitter jail.

Free speech haven appears to be precisely Musks goal, though, so we have hope things will keep looking up. Heres to no more hateful content warnings for pointing out the Y chromosome or saying the 2020 election wasnt perfect.

To that end, Ive compiled 100 facts that censorious Democrats might not like but Musk-owned Twitter should let people tweet.

1. Boys and girls are different.

2. Ivermectin works.

3. Cloth masks arent effective.

4. Lockdowns caused more harm than good.

5. Hunter Bidens laptop is real.

6. Black Lives Matter is a grift.

7. Joe Biden was involved in Hunters sketchy foreign business.

8. Rachel Levine is a man.

9. The 2020 election was rigged.

10. People who teach gender identity to kindergarteners are groomers.

11. Preborn children are living humans.

12. Gender affirmation is child abuse.

13. AR-15s arent assault weapons.

14. Shotguns kick harder than semi-automatic rifles.

15. Gas prices are Joe Bidens fault.

16. Inflation isnt Vladimir Putins fault.

17. Covid vaccines dont keep you from getting the WuFlu.

18. Covid vaccines dont keep you from spreading the WuFlu.

19. Covid vaccines were a success of the Trump administration.

20. Peaceful protests arent fiery.

21. Donald Trump didnt collude with Russia.

22. Barack Obama spied on the Trump campaign.

23. Covid probably escaped from a lab.

24. Communist China is committing genocide.

25. Roe v. Wade is bad case law.

26. College is overrated.

27. Government-funded means taxpayer-funded.

28. The world is not ending from climate change in the next decade.

29. Clean energy isnt clean.

30. Fauci lied. People died.

31. Murdering babies in utero isnt eradicating Down syndrome.

32. Latinx is not a real word.

33. The 1619 Project is historically inaccurate.

34. Drag Queen Story Hour is not a blessing of liberty.

35. Stacey Abrams has never been governor of Georgia.

36. Donald Trump never incited an insurrection.

37. Mainstream doesnt define the corporate press.

38. Children have a right to a mother and a father.

39. Jack Phillips did nothing wrong.

40. Trans policies are hurting women.

41. Critical race theory is ideological poison.

42. Public schools are corrupted by critical race theory.

43. Conservative parents arent domestic terrorists.

44. Transition regret is real.

45. Paper straws suck.

46. Minimum wage isnt supposed to be a living wage.

47. Obesity shouldnt be celebrated.

48. The United States should not go to war with Russia.

49. Joe Biden is a plagiarist.

50. Declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be declaring war on Russia.

51. Abortion isnt health care.

52. Wrong-sex hormones arent health care.

53. Covid is no longer an emergency.

54. Jobs recovered after government-induced lockdowns arent new jobs.

55. Mask mandates didnt work.

56. Vaccine mandates didnt work.

57. Parents should have a say in what their children learn in taxpayer-funded schools.

58. Brett Kavanaugh isnt a gang rapist.

59. You can define woman without being a biologist.

60. Taylor Lorenz is a doxxer.

61. Satire isnt hate speech.

62. Common Core is a failure.

63. The deep state is real.

64. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor was a lie.

65. Strong borders matter.

66. The Jan. 6 Committee is a sham.

67. The first impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

68. The second impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

69. Censorship by non-state actors is still censorship.

70. Pornographic books are not appropriate for elementary schoolers.

71. Hatred for white people based on their skin color is racism.

72. Children dont need smartphones.

73. Masculinity isnt toxic.

74. Feminism lied to women.

75. Student loan forgiveness advantages high-earning doctors and lawyers most.

76. Disney hates your values.

77. Joe Biden wrecked the economy.

78. Joe Bidens withdrawal from Afghanistan was deadly.

79. Careers dont bring women more happiness than motherhood.

80. Ketanji Brown Jackson went soft on child porn offenders.

81. Hunter Biden lied on a federal background check form to illegally buy a gun.

82. Trans bathroom policies put girls in danger.

83. Jan. 6 rioters didnt kill anyone.

84. Black Lives Matter rioters killed dozens of people.

85. Floridas Parental Right in Education Law still allows people to say gay.

86. Andrew Cuomos nursing home policies killed people.

87. Silence isnt violence.

88. Speech isnt violence.

89. Border Patrol agents didnt whip migrants.

90. Joe Biden hasnt apologized for lying that they did.

91. Lia Thomas is a man.

92. Rochelle Walensky colluded with teachers unions to keep schools closed.

93. Children have never been at significant risk of death from Covid-19.

94. This inflation isnt transitory.

95. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee funded the Steele dossier.

96. The Steele dossier was bogus.

97. Rep. Eric Swalwell hasnt denied sleeping with a Chinese spy.

Read more from the original source:

100 Facts Elon Musk-Owned Twitter Should Now Allow People To Say Without Getting Banned - The Federalist

In its latest effort to implicate former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the violence on Capitol Hill last year, the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 revealed Meadows had been warned about the potential for unrest preceding the riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been warned too, and refused multiple requests to prepare.

Meadows, according to former advisor Cassidy Hutchinson, who was subpoenaed by the committee, was cautioned about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6 surrounding the presidents protests.

I know that there were concerns brought forward to Mr. Meadows, Hutchinson told panel investigators in March. I know that people had brought information forward to him that had indicated that there could be violence on the 6th. But, again, Im not sure if he what he did with that information.

The testimony was revealed in a 248-page court filing from the probes attorneys in an ongoing legal drama between Meadows and the Select Committee over White House records.

The committees revelation made headline news across legacy outlets, amplifying the probes discovery as an indictment against a primary target of the regimes investigation in routine fashion.

Meadows Was Warned Jan. 6 Could Turn Violent, House Panel Says, read The New York Times.

Meadows was warned Jan. 6 could turn violent, former White House official says, headlined another article in NBC.

Meadows was warned of violence before Jan. 6, new court filings show, The Washington Post wrote in front-page news as a most read column Saturday morning.

If the revelation that Meadows was told violence might occur surrounding the protest of a politically sensitive subject is a major scandal, however, perhaps the committee should probe why Pelosi denied requests to deploy the National Guard up to six times.

In December, the initial trove of Meadows documents published by the Select Committee revealed Meadows pledged the National Guard would be ready to maintain order. The records illustrate a White House chief of staff who was far from dismissive of violent threats as depicted by the committee investigating Jan. 6.

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect pro Trump people and that many more would be available on standby, the Select Committee wrote. Panel members framed the material as an unearthed scandal but it now undermines its latest made-up scandal four months later.

In fact, nearly everyone in Washington knew about the potential for political unrest to break out at the climax of a violent election cycle. Even the Capitol Hill parking attendants warned about the hazard.

Due to the possibility of large-scale public protests, access to the Capitol Plaza will be restricted, read an email from the House Parking Team on the eve of the riot obtained by The Federalist. For the safety and security of personnel on the House campus, we ask that staff strongly consider parking in the Cannon and Longworth House Underground Garages.

That Meadows, a former four-term member of Congress, would be totally oblivious to the idea that mass protests might deteriorate into an uproar is negligent thinking.

Whereas Meadows was a White House bureaucrat involved in the planning of a peaceful demonstration on the Ellipse, Pelosi possessed the authority to adequately prepare for what was to come on Capitol Hill, and she deliberately refused.

According to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, the agency requested Speaker Pelosi approve the deployment of the National Guard six times ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. Sund said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who works under Pelosi, thought the deployment was bad optics two days prior. Pelosi and House Democrats had previously condemned the use of federal troops in Washington to quell the violent mobs terrorizing the city.

The speakers deputies on the Select Committee investigating the attack, however, have publicly stated no interest in probing Pelosis own culpability.

If you look at the charge that we have in the resolution, it says the facts and circumstances around January 6. I dont see the speaker being part and parcel to that, Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told CNN last year.

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.

See the original post here:

Before J6, Meadows Put Troops On Standby While Pelosi Refused Them - The Federalist

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committees claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durhams office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsels pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmanns former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsels office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmanns efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNCs motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsels office to key facts about the FECs recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to outside research firms such as Fusion GPS to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing opposition research into Donald Trump.

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that the research was not for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice, but to further the political and campaign-related goals of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges.

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsels office, the FEC had found probable cause to believe the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum will not be made public for another week, the letter explained.

Foundation counsel Dan Backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsels office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durhams team further details on the FECs investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Fridays letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNCs commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to not further contest the Commissions finding of probable cause to believe that the political organizations had falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services. In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, the letter stressed.

The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating, the foundations letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement material in ruling on any privilege claims.

Whether the special counsel will follow the foundations suggestion and obtain the memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel before the judge in the Sussmann case rules on the Clinton campaign and the DNCs assertions of attorney-client privilege is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that the special counsels office intends to ensure the jury knows that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC believe communications relevant to Sussmanns efforts to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax are protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Friday we also learned just how the special counsel hopes to do thatby having representatives of both the Clinton campaign and DNC testify at trial. That revelation appeared in a response brief Sussmanns attorneys filed last week, wherein the defense team noted that they had just learned that the special counsel had issued trial subpoenas to both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. According to Sussmanns legal team, the special counsel requested the testimony of witnesses from those political organizations regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.

Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FECs conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Fridays letter to the special counsels office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNCs settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they wont contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.

That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. 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.

Excerpt from:

Letter: No, Hillary Can't Try To Hide Her Oppo From The Special Counsel - The Federalist

What are we to make of a comment Monday from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that the Biden administrations goal in Ukraine is to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine?

Austin made the remark in a press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken after the pair met with Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, in what was the highest level visit by U.S. officials since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February.

One obvious conclusion we can draw from Austins comment is that the Biden administration has now committed openly to a policy of escalation in Ukraine. The White House intends to keep the war in Ukraine alive, with the stated goal of weakening Moscow by continuing to pour new and more advanced weaponry into the war-ravaged country.

Indeed, Austin and Blinken announced a new round of military aid to Ukraine, bringing the total amount of U.S. assistance to about $3.7 billion since the invasion began. After resisting pressure early in the conflict to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons systems, the Biden administration has changed course. It is now preparing to send heavy artillery, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, antiaircraft radar systems, advanced attack drones and other weapons.

Austin told members of the press that the Defense Department wont just send weapons, but will expand military training for Ukrainian service members in the region on certain weapons systems being provided.

Delivering all this aid is of course itself an escalation of U.S. involvement in the war. A Wall Street Journalreportabout the meeting in Kyiv included this detail, buried near the end of the story:Senior U.S. military officers at a facility in Poland described an accelerating logistical network for supplying weapons and materiel to Ukraine, as well as a regional effort to increase troop levels and exercises with NATO members along the alliances eastern flank.

Seven 155-mm artillery pieces, along with their tow vehicles, are being processed through the facility, adding to the 18 howitzers the U.S. has already provided to Ukraine, a senior defense official said. Six dozen U.S. howitzers are being sent to Ukraine under a new aid package, and rounds of 155-mm artillery were visible on pallets at the Polish facility.

These weapons and munitions are getting into Ukraine for the most part via railway, which is probably why Russiacarried out missile strikeson least five railway stations across central and western Ukraine early Monday, just hours after Austin and Blinken met with Zelensky.

How did Austin and Blinken get to that meeting? By railway. Politicoreportedthat Austin and Blinken traveled to and from Kyiv by train and crossed into Poland shortly before Russian missiles struck several railway lines including one in the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, near the Polish border.

If youre wondering what is the significance of this deepening U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, or how it might lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia, consider that the U.S. secretaries of defense and state might have just narrowly missed being struck by a Russian missile as they traveled to and from Kyiv by rail on Monday.

As the Biden administration escalates, the chances that something very much like that will happen are going to increase exponentially. Perhaps a crew of U.S. servicemen quietly sent into the country to train Ukrainian troops on the use of a new U.S.-provided weapons systems will get hit by a Russian missile strike. Perhaps U.S. diplomats, whom Blinken said are returning to Ukraine this week, first to Lviv and eventually to Kyiv, will be killed or injured or otherwise caught in the crossfire.

We cant know what will happen exactly, only that if the United States continues down this path sending Ukraine increasingly advanced weapons systems, training Ukrainian troops, underwriting Ukraines defense it will lead,as it has already led, to ever-increasing U.S. involvement in the war.

At some point, it wont matter that back in March President Biden said he wouldnt send U.S. troops to Ukraine. The logic of U.S. escalation is already at work, moving us toward direct engagement.

After all, the Pentagonsaid in early Marchthat a U.S.-facilitated transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine was not tenable, yet last week the United States and its allies took a step in that direction,providing Ukraine with aircraft partsit needed to get 20 grounded planes operational. Even now, Slovakia is in talks with its NATO allies aboutproviding MiG-29 warplanes to Ukraineif the United States will replace them with F-16s.

Beyond the logic of escalation, there is a strategic dead-end looming for the Biden administration. Early on in the war, Blinken articulated the hoped-for end state in Ukraine: We have to sustain this until it stops, until the war is over, Russian forces leave, the Ukrainian people regain their independence, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity. Were committed to doing that.

The best way to understand that is as a maximalist policy vis--vis Moscow: a total defeat of Moscow and a complete humiliation of the Russian armed forces. Since Blinken said that in early March, versions of it have been repeated in the corporate press and among unreconstructed foreign policy neocons.

Arecent columnby Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal is representative of this view. The time has come, he says, for the West to declare its intention to win in Ukraine. After all, Americas credibility is at stake. The moment has arrived in this war for Mr. Biden to clear something up with one presidential assertion: Were in this thing to win.

So goes the thinking among establishment types inside the Beltway. As far as they are concerned, the United States is in this thing. And if were in, then wed better win. The assumption underlying this analysis is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, faced with U.S. escalation, will back down and accept defeat. An unmitigated Ukrainian victory is, according to these people, somehow a realistic outcome of this conflict.

But history, especially theunique history of Russo-Ukrainian relations, suggests otherwise. Indeed it suggests that Moscow will never allow for the kind of Ukrainian victory that Blinken and the White House are working towards. To the extent U.S. policymakers are relying on, say, historical comparisons to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan as a guide for the creation of U.S. policy in Ukraine, then were in trouble.

Put another way,this is not a peripheral conflict for Russia. As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the fate of Ukraine is inextricably tied to Russias core strategic national interests. The chances that Putin will accept total defeat in Ukraine without escalation that involves the use of nuclear weapons, or that involves widening the war, are probably lower than most Americans are comfortable with.

To bring it back to Defense Secretary Austins remark about the U.S. wanting to see Russia weakened to the point it cannot field a military capable of invading a much smaller country, one has to ask: how does Russia, a country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, get weakened to that point? Do Austin and his generals really think that a U.S.-backed Ukraine is going to be able to do that? Or do they have something else in mind? The evidence suggests they have something else in mind, and that something else is direct U.S. and NATO involvement.

Instead of barreling toward a clash between Russia and the West, a wiser course of action for the Biden administration would be to ensure the United States doesnt get drawn into the war at all, and takes the lead in urging both sides to come to a negotiated political settlement that puts an end to the fighting.

But with each passing week, that wiser course of action becomes more remote and less possible, while a far more dangerous and increasingly inexorable course of events, for the United States and Russia and the entire world, draws ever closer.

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

Link:

Biden Is Openly Pursuing A Policy Of Escalation In Ukraine - The Federalist

Imagine an America in which a summa cum laude medical graduate interviews at countless medical schools but cannot find one that will tolerate her Christian faith, a faith-based pro-life clinic faces a financial crisis after having its federal Title X funds stripped away, and federal agencies discriminate against hospitals and clinics nationwide for refusing to kowtow to the administrations extremist stances on abortion, sexuality, and marriage.

That reality is already well on its way here, and will only get worse with the proposed elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for health professionals. President Joe Bidens HHS announced last week that the agency is in the rulemaking processof rolling back former President Donald Trumps protections for medical personnel whose faith prevents them from performing procedures like abortion.

Already, the three above examples are happening.

I was top of my class (summa cum laude) as an undergrad at UC Berkeley, had an MCAT score above the average of all the medical schools I applied to, and I had participated in many extracurriculars, reports one young woman. I think I applied to essentially all of the medical schools in my home state of California. I did not get even a single interviewexcept for the faith-based school of Loma Linda.

In a national scientific survey of faith-based health professionals that I constructed in 2019, 3 in 5 respondents agreed with the poll statement that it is common that doctors, medical students or other health-care professionals face discrimination for declining to participate in activities or provide medical procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Pro-life clinics like the example above will be at risk to lose federal Title X family planning funds thanks to the Biden administrations scheme, announced in April 2021, that would reverse a Trump administration policy and require grantees to make abortion referrals: Each project supported under this part must offer pregnant clients the opportunity to be provided information and counseling regarding pregnancy termination.

The abortion referral requirement affects pro-life clinics such as Staten Island, N.Y.s Beacon Christian Community Health Center. Beacon won an award under the Trump rule but no longer receives Title X funds to aid its low-income patients. The Biden administration is moving to effectively reserve those funds for its abortion business political supporters.

Finally, federal agencies are already working to discriminate against hospitals and clinics that dont match their ideology, eliminating conscientious objectors. Bidens HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra has signaled he will cease the prosecution of conscience law violators.

As The Federalist has documented, Bidens HHS has torn down the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, stripped the HHS Office of Civil Rights authority to enforce conscience and religious objections, dismissed a case of forced abortion participation, assured abortionists that We have your back, and rescinded conscience waivers that had allowed federal grants to faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.

The Biden administration now is churning out rules that aggressively enforce its ideology on abortion; religious exemptions; insurance coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients; sterilization; allowing men in womens sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms; compelled speech; and Title IX sexual harassment due process protections. These ideologically driven restrictions could slam the door on thousands of pro-life hospitals and clinics as well as highly effective faith-based social programs for adoption and foster care, food and clothing distribution, mental health service, ex-offender programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, marriage and family counseling, and teen pregnancy prevention programs.

Such animosity toward persons of faith and pro-life convictions would only accelerate and exacerbate the long-predicted physician shortage crisis, leaving poor and marginalized patients without the faith-based care on which they had depended.

At the top of the administrations list of ideological mandates, however, is abortion, an issue on which self-described good Catholic Joe Biden apparently suffers from catechetical dementia.In 2006, Biden proudly proclaimed, I do not vote for funding for abortion.

But in his 2019 presidential run, he dropped his long-standing support for the Hyde Amendment that prohibits most federal funding for abortion. His administrations blitzkrieg of rules is now embedding abortion ideology even further in government policy while essentially eliminating funding for abortion opponents.

The administrations anti-religion ideological purge threatens to create what Richard John Neuhaus warned of in 1984 a naked public square, a government devoid of religious participation, values, and moral influence. In particular, excluding people of faith from health care bodes severe consequences.

Both our 2019 national survey of faith-based health professionals and another in 2009 revealed that 91 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience. They cannot separate their faith-motivated mission to care for the poor from their faith commitment to honor the sanctity of human life.

Left unchecked, the Biden administration may well succeed in driving the pro-life and faith communities out of partnerships with the federal government. The victims of the resulting naked public square will be millions of patients, the poor, and other needy and suffering individuals served by faith-based health and social services programs.

Jonathan Imbody is a writer and consultant with FaithSteps.net and has several decades of experience in federal healthcare and religious freedom public policy.

Original post:

Biden Is Purging From Health Care Anyone Who Thinks Babies Are People And Men Aren't Women - The Federalist

More than a dozen GOP governors wrote to President Joe Biden Tuesday signaling opposition to his executive order requiring government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on taxpayer-funded construction contracts exceeding $35 million, according to a newly obtained letter.

Biden signed Executive Order 14063 in February at a Maryland union hall. PLAs are collective bargaining agreements that are project-specific and give union contractors public works contracts. Led by Govs. Bill Lee of Tennessee and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, the group of governors say the president is essentially giving unions a monopoly on major federal government projects.

When mandated by government agencies, PLAs can interfere with existing union collective bargaining agreements and needlessly discourage competition from quality nonunion contractors and their employees who comprise 87.4% of the private U.S. construction industry workforce according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, they write, adding:

Reducing competition from some of the best union and nonunion construction firms and workers will exacerbate the construction industrys skilled labor shortage, delay projects, and increase construction costs by estimates of 12% to 20% per project, which will result in fewer infrastructure improvements, less construction industry job creation, and higher taxes.

PLAs make contractors change out existing employees with union hiring hall workers. Since 2009, more than half of the federal governments construction projects have been built by nonunion contractors, The Wall Street Journal reported, while the estimated 12 to 20 percent construction cost increase may result in fewer improvements to utility, affordable housing, roads, and bridges.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The construction industry is grappling with a skilled labor shortage of 430,000 workers, the group Associated Builders and Contracts determined in a 2021 report. The governors think Bidens order will exacerbate this, as well as delay projects and result in less infrastructure.

In short, the aforementioned policies will undermine taxpayer investment in billions of dollars of forthcoming public works projects financed by the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 and additional bipartisan legislation passed by Congress, all of which was signed into law free from language requiring or encouraging the use of PLAs, the governors write.

Republican governors wrote to Biden in January seeking cooperation from his administration on infrastructure implementation. The governors called on federal agencies to work with states to draft regulations and guidance that allow maximum regulatory flexibility to prevent further federal overreach in order to protect economic growth.

In 2009, then-President Barack Obama signed an executive order encouraging PLAs. The order stipulated that agencies, on a case-by-case basis, when awarding a contract costing more than $25 million or more, may require a PLA when it will:

Advance the Federal Governments interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and be consistent with law.

It is the contention of the governors, roughly three months after their January letter, that the Biden administration must give states flexibility and avoid costly pro-PLA policies. A 2021 study by the Rand Corporation, a think tank that is partly funded by the U.S. government, found that a PLA mandate in Los Angeles resulted in fewer projects and spiked construction costs.

Other studies have shown similar results.

An October 2021 study authored by a former Saint Louis University professor found nonunion workers suffer around a 34 percent reduction in wages and benefits under government-enforced PLAs. A 2019 study released by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research found that the construction of New Jersey schools built under PLAs cost roughly 16 percent more than schools built free from such restrictions.

In addition to Lee and Hutchinson, the letter sent Tuesday was signed by Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Mike Parson of Missouri, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

View the full letter here.

Here is the original post:

GOP Governors Oppose Biden EO Creating Monopoly On Federal Construction Contracts - The Federalist

The Labor Departments March inflation numbers released this month skyrocketed past Februarys, hitting a 12-month increase of 8.5 percent and the steepest annual increase since 1981. Thats no small figure, but most Americans know the inflation they encounter at the grocery store checkout, the gas pump, the car lot, and the leasing office is far higher than that.

Just look at basic items like groceries and gas, and youll see how much higher those necessities are climbing than the generic inflation figures slapped across headlines.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in the average U.S. city, ground beef is up 14.9 percent since last March, boneless stew beef is up 24.3 percent, bacon is up 23.1 percent, boneless chicken breasts are up 17.6 percent, eggs are up 25.9 percent, milk is up 17 percent, frozen orange juice concentrate is up 18 percent, and ground coffee is up 15.8 percent. Meanwhile, fuel oil has jumped a whopping 71.5 percent, and utility gas is up 23.3 percent.

Many of these urban numbers dont even capture how steeply prices have risen for middle America, however. In the Midwest, ground beef has risen 24.5 percent, almost 10 percentage points more than the urban average.

While BLS breaks down beef products into ground beef, steaks, stew beef, etc., its all other uncooked beef category shows a drastic 38.2 percent jump in the Midwest, compared to a still-high rise of 25.4 percent in cities. The inflation of the price of bacon in the Midwest is 3 percentage points higher than in cities, while for boneless ham its more than 15 percentage points higher. The price of boneless chicken breasts in the Midwest jumped by31.2 percent, compared to 17.6 in U.S. cities.

In all likelihood, these prices arent done climbing. Investment firm Evercore ISI projected the price of chicken breasts to jump at a year-over-year rate of up to 70 percent in the first half of 2022, with beef and pork prices rising 20 percent.

So when you hear 8 percent inflation bandied about but feel certain your costs are rising at a far higher rate, youre not crazy youre just feeling the very real consequences of inflationary policies that Washington types are happy to brush off.

Dont listen to CNN journo-splaining to you Why inflation can actually be good for everyday Americans and bad for rich people. As Axios reported from Labor Department statistics, Shoppers with incomes of less than $40,000 arent buying as much fresh meat and seafood. Theyre turning to frozen meat or canned stuff instead and buying more store brands. Its these lower-income shoppers who are most at-risk as food prices rise.

Its also not just gas and groceries that are rising higher and faster than the nationally reported inflation numbers. According to a Redfinanalysis, February saw a 15 percent year-over-year increase in asking rent, and a 31 percent jump in the national homebuyers median monthly mortgage rate. Americans in the market to buy used vehicles have also seen a far higher price spike than the overall inflation rate in the past year, at a whopping41.2 percent as reported in March.

At the same time, wages cant keep pace with rising expenses, meaning Bidenflation is skimming off the top of Americans paychecks to the tune of around $4,200 in annual depreciation of the average salarys worth.

These are unsustainable numbers for most Americans, especially those who arent making as much as the politicians pushing bloated, multi-trillion-dollar spending plans to flood the economy with cash thats bleeding value. Legacy media outlets might try to downplay rising inflation as something that could be solved by eating lentils and letting the family pet die, but Americans know every time they buy groceries, fill the gas tank, or pay the utility bill how hard high-spending inflationary policies are making their lives.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

View post:

The Inflation Draining Your Wallet Is A Whole Lot Steeper Than 8 Percent - The Federalist

As the country awaits the Supreme Courts decision on the Mississippi law banning abortions after babies are 15 weeks old in Dobbs v. Jackson, the fate of thousands of unborn babies lies in the hands of these justices.Sarah Eubanks knows just what horrors await those unborn children if the court doesnt recognize their right to live.

Eubanks, who now advocates for the pro-life movement, worked in the Ladies Center, an abortion facility in Mobile, Ala. After witnessing the murder of thousands of unborn children and enduring the trauma of her own abortion, Eubanks decided to spend the rest of her life telling the world about the horrifying secrets of the industry, as well as the trauma shes experienced.

During her time at the abortion center, Eubanks worked in the POC room. POC stands for Products of Conception: the pro-choice way of sugar-coating what was actually a baby morgue.

Eubanks would pick out a babys body parts from the suction machine and put the limbs back together, like a puzzle. Once she would piece the spine, skull, and arms together, she would determine whether all of the childs body was out of the mother.

When you get trained to do that, that means you really know your stuff, she explained. And that youre good and trustworthy and dependable that now youre being promoted, in a sense, and were gonna give you this honor of doing this horrific task.

While the task of putting these babies back together was deemed a badge of honor, Eubanks would go home and wash baby blood off her hands. And it wasnt just the blood of a few babies; thousands of children were massacred in these facilities.

During her time there, Eubanks says she assisted in the abortions of almost 5,000 mothers. The actual number of children aborted was more than that; the abortionist would never tell the woman whether she was pregnant with one, two, or three babies. Most women walked out assuming they had been pregnant with one child when many were carrying twins or even triplets.

To make matters worse, the abortion center would not tell the mothers if they were past 14 weeks. While the policy at the center was that abortions past 14 weeks would not be performed, their abortionists still killed fetuses far past this mark, Eubanks said. Before the procedure, a pelvic examination was performed, and the abortionist would be able to tell how far along the pregnancy was.

I do remember a few times like seeing a doctors face kind of like, you know somethings off here, but they still would go ahead and do the procedure, Eubanks said. Looking back, I do think that maybe those were the ones that were further along.

Regardless, the abortionists would follow through with the abortion and never tell the mothers how far along they really were, if they were pregnant with more than one child, or even the babys sex, she added.

While the abortion center would never tell the mothers this information, many of the workers assumed women would just carry on with their lives after their abortion. In reality, many women walked out of the office regretting their decision and were traumatized by the procedure.

Perhaps the most gutwrenching vision Eubanks recalled seeing at the abortion center was the case of a 12-year-old girl who was brought in by her grandmother. By the girls hysteria, it was clear that she did not understand what was going on.

I remember that look on her face that she just didnt understand what was going on. She didnt want to be there, Eubanks said. She started moving around and the doctor said, You need to hold her down. I did put my hands on her and said You have to settle down, you gotta be still, youre gonna hurt yourself. You have to be still. And within an instant, she pushed her feet out of the stirrups and started running down the hall with the speculum in her vagina with blood running down her legs.

The doctor said, Im not touching this,' recalled Eubanks. She was that upset. She just didnt want to be there. She was screaming. She was out of control. And even the administrators were like, Shes gotta go. Shes just got to go.

This young girl was just one of many patients who did not understand what was going on and was pressured to follow through with the abortion. Many women got cold feet after entering the building and tried to back out at the last minute but were told it was too late, Eubanks recalled.

Women were told, Were not going to give a refund. Youre already here. It is what it is, she said.

This repeated lie that there were no other options caused the deaths of many unborn children. If the abortion facility had been honest about other options, such as adoption, less blood would have been spilled. Instead, these women were lied to and just handed birth control when they left.

You dont give them options in the clinic, said Eubanks. The only options that we gave the patients were What kind of birth control pills do you want to take home? Those are the only options. We didnt ever talk about adoption and keeping the baby. We never talked about that.

By just handing out birth control and not educating these women on their options, the facility made many patients believe abortion was the only solution and that they could come back to get another abortion when they got pregnant again, she said.

[Patients were never told] that this is killing your child, that this is not the solution, Eubanks said.

Eubanks recalled a woman who came in for her 12th abortion. Every time she came in, she cried. And every time, the abortion center never bothered to educate her on how to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

I remember she was laying on the table crying because it was so painful. And I was like, how many times have you been through this? She was crying before each one. On her records, it showed that she had had 12 abortions.

The issues at stake in Dobbs are far more than political ones, Eubanks noted. This isnt political. This is heart. When your heart changes on abortion, thats when true change happens.

Eubanks had an abortion when she was 19, believing it was her only option and that it would spare her family embarrassment. But once the procedure started, she knew she had made a mistake.

The suction piece of hard plastic went in, and when, the second I felt my baby being ripped out of my womb, I knew I had made a mistake, she recalled. I felt it. And I laid on the table crying in solid tears. [People] dont talk about the sadness, the hurt.

When I came out, I was just very stoic, very solemn. I remember going to the bathroom and throwing up, and I sat on the floor next to the toilet, just crying my eyes out, she added. You cant grieve an abortion. Its not right because its your choice. You chose this.

Twelve years after her abortion, Eubanks and her husband tried to get pregnant, to no avail. Told by her doctor that they had found scar tissue in her uterus, she believes her abortion caused her infertility.

Only in recent years did Eubanks tell her family about her abortion. When she finally told her mother about her secret, that she had had an abortion in 1987, she was surprised by her mothers response.

I went over to her house because I wanted to talk to her. And I said, I just want to tell you that in 1987, I had an abortion.'

I know, said her mother. Thats when you changed.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Mississippis ban on abortion and others like it, millions of unborn children will be sacrificed to the lie that its empowering for women to abort their children. In reality, killing an unborn child brings nothing but trauma, guilt, and heartbreak. Not only can the Supreme Court save the lives of millions of unborn children, but the lives of so many women may be salvaged too.

Alasdaire Fleitas is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where she studies psychology and religious studies.

Read the original:

The Dark Truths I Learned From Both Sides Of The Abortionist's Table - The Federalist

New York Times columnist Charles Blow recently claimed to be truly shocked by a poll showing President Biden with a 33 percent approval rating. I was shocked, too how could his approval rating be that high?

Blow, of course, is surprised at Bidens unpopularity, and worried that the Democrats are stumbling into a bloodbath in the November midterms. Blow is paid to understand and explain politics and culture to his readers. That he is surprised reveals a lot about the bubble he is in. And his meandering analysis of Democrats problems illustrates how the ideology making Democrats unpopular is also preventing them from understanding why they are unpopular.

Blow initially blames Biden for being too much of a decent man sober and straightforward rather than a showman. This is a ludicrous assessment of a politician, who, until age caught up with his tongue, was one of D.C.s preeminent bloviators. Nonetheless, Blows ordinary partisan delusion is less interesting than the ideological blind spots revealed when he turns to genuine sources of Bidens unpopularity, such as the fear of crime and the pinch of inflation and that Republicans are playing heavily into culture war issues.

Although Blow does not seem to realize it, these issues combine to reinforce voters disapproval of Biden. Democratic failures on bread and butter issues such as crime and inflation are related to the culture-war radicalism that has captured their party.

Twitter, not the blue-collar union hall, is now the heart of the Democratic Party, which is controlled by the educated, urban professional-managerial class, epitomized by woke, union-busting CEOs. This faction has merged the class and culture wars championing cultural radicalism, entrenching its own economic interests, and neglecting the common good.

The Democrats are the party of wealthy diversity consultants lecturing hourly workers about white privilege and cis-heteropatriarchy while inflation eats away at wages and investment firms buy up homes in the hope of making America a nation of permanent renters. The governing priorities of those running the Democratic Party are sending government money to their clients (from teachers unions to Planned Parenthood) and waging culture war.

And they are fanatical culture warriors. Consider Blows complaint that the GOP is challenging the teaching of Black history and the history of white supremacy in schools, as well as restricting discussions of L.G.B.T. issues and campaigning against trans women and girls competing in sports with other women and girls. He adds that Republicans are using white parental fear, particularly the fears of white moms.

This litany of whines highlights the bubble Blow and his audience at The New York Times are in. Ordinary Americans know the difference between teaching history and teaching poisonous ideology derived from critical race theory. Americans understand that it is unjust for males to compete in womens sports, and that it is perverse to teach young children about sex and gender ideology. They are angry when educators encourage children to transition, and outraged when they hide it from parents.

Voters have also noticed that the cultural left never stops where it says it will. We were assured that the LGBT movement was about tolerance for consenting adult relationships; now it is about transgender toddlers, child drag queens, and men in girls locker rooms. We are also now told that being anti-racist somehow means judging people based on the color of their skin. Blow and other bubbled liberals may be okay with mastectomies for confused teenage girls, but most Americans are not.

This cultural radicalism erodes Democrats ability to govern competently. Sometimes this is the result of neglecting the basic tasks of government in order to prioritize boutique cultural issues, other times it is a direct consequence of ideology, as exemplified in the crime wave resulting from woke prosecutors and defunding the police.

In either case, wokeness is an ideology for those who are cushioned from its consequences. Indeed, wokeness is primarily a phenomenon of the college-educated, and especially the well-off; it is a niche, luxury political philosophy that thrives among the privileged and in the shelter of academia.

But though it is often a political liability, there are ways it serves the interests of its adherents. In particular, woke ideology legitimates the rule of the woke over the non-woke, and justifies economic exploitation and socio-political repression.

Wokeness claims to reveal the systems of unjust oppression that permeate society; it focuses on race, sex, and gender, and relegates economic class to a second-tier concern. This allows many of the privileged and powerful to claim to be righteous allies of the oppressed without having to sacrifice economic or social power or position. Indeed, many can claim to be oppressed themselves. This is why wokeness tends to focus on BIPoC and LGBT representation in boardrooms and Ivy League campuses, rather than helping the working class.

Thus, it is to be expected that woke discourse often suggests that the working class (especially working-class whites) have it coming for their sins of racism, sexism, transphobia, and so on the wicked deserve punishment, not sympathy. This is why pundits such as Blow are so quick to accuse dissenters of racism and bigotry. And it is why the woke left supports oligarchic power in pursuit of its aims, and eagerly uses economic, technological, and cultural power to suppress dissent.

This is why professors are having to submit woke loyalty oaths in the form of diversity statements, and why mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training has become the norm in the corporate world. This is why the left is eager to use social media censorship to suppress misinformation which in many cases is truth that is inconvenient to the regime (e.g., the Hunter Biden laptop story).

It is also why the left cannot understand its own failures. They have isolated themselves in a bubble that has drifted so far from reality and the concerns of normal voters that even electoral disaster may not bring them back to Earth. Cocooned in privilege and ideology, they think Biden is doing just fine. But most Americans have had enough of a government that is more committed to transitioning children than to controlling crime and inflation.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Continued here:

How Democrats' Culture War Is Destroying Their Ability To Govern - The Federalist