Monthly Archives: June 2022

Source: The Federalist. Gideon Edition, eds. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 4249.

. . . By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: The one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said, than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment, without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties, is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders, ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions, whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests, forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.

It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the right of another, or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views, by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add, that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority, at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know, that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure democracy, by which I mean, a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert, results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that, by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.

The two great points of difference, between a democracy and a republic, are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen, that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people.

The other point of difference is, the great number of citizens, and extent of territory, which may be brought within the compass of republican, than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states; a religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national councils against any danger from that source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.

Read the rest here:

Federalist 10 | Teaching American History

Virginia Ginni Thomas, a prominent conservative activist who is also married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is demanding that the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 elaborate on its basis for soliciting testimony over privately petitioning her own government.

Hours after the Jan. 6 Committee wrapped up its sixth hearing on Tuesday, Ginnis attorney, Mark Paoletta, sent a letter to the panels leadership requesting specifics on why the probe with an open animosity for the Thomas family seeks to publicly drag his client before lawmakers.

Mrs. Thomas is eager to clear her name and is willing to appear before the Committee to do so, Paoletta wrote to Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. However, based on my understanding of the communications that spurred the Committees request, I do not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas.

In March, Ginni became the center of a fabricated controversy related to the Jan. 6 Committees investigation when the panel leaked a series of private text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages, 29 in all, revealed a conservative activist pleading with a government official to continue investigating allegations of election fraud in the pandemic-era contest, which included record-level turnout in the form of mail-in voting that was ripe for misconduct.

Committee members escalated their efforts to compel Ginnis testimony earlier this month after more private communications were revealed with individuals involved in former President Donald Trumps efforts to halt certification of the 2020 election. Thompson told Axios his colleagues on the panel think its time that we, at some point, invite her [Thomas] to come talk to the committee.

Ginni said shortly after she looked forward to talking to them.

I cant wait to clear up misconceptions, she told the Daily Caller.

Further examination of the committees request, however, has given Ginni pause.

The panels request focuses on Ginnis communications with attorney and law professor John Eastman, who produced legal theories to justify delays in certification of the electoral college. The extent of the pairs contact, however, as outlined by Paoletta, stretches to generic emails forwarded by Ginni on a large distribution list and an invitation to speak to a group of conservative activists, a type of event Ginni organizes regularly.

Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman, Paoletta wrote.

Paoletta also outlined skepticism that the committee was operating in good faith in its desire to bring Ginni before lawmakers, considering her husband is among the most targeted members of the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Thompson stood by his comments calling Justice Thomas Uncle Tom in a speech with the New Nation of Islam, which believes intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.

Thomas doesnt like black people, [and] he doesnt like being black, the congressman said.

These statements by the Committees chairman certainly raise alarm bells when the committee says that it wants to speak with Mrs. Thomas, Paoletta wrote.

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.

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She'll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe - The Federalist

Editors note: The following is an adapted excerpt from Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone, by Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry, available now on Amazon.

It made some sense that liberal Democrats would be bitter immediately after the 2016 election. The country had just denied Hillary Clintonyes, Empress Hillary Clintonas heir to her throne and instead chose to elevate a foul-mouthed barbarian named Donald Trump to the presidency.

A true outsider who represented all the things liberals hate masculinity, optimism, independenceruined the illusion that America was now exclusively their domain, a place they had hoped to use for their racial fixations, green energy projects, and weird gender-bender social experiments.

They lost. And losing hurts. But its not supposed to be permanent. The next critical election is always within arms reach and there are more productive ways to spend time than holding on to the pain of the last one.

As of 2016, though, liberals and Democrats no longer saw things that way, if they ever truly did at all. After that election, they believed there was no reason to pretend that they understood differences of political opinion, nor that they could tolerate them. They no longer viewed Republicans, conservatives, or even just open-minded independents as the opposition in an honest democracy. They saw them all as an existential enemy that needed to be extinguished.

And thus began our long journey through hell. Pussy hats. Public crying. Fake hate crimes perpetrated by nonexistent Trump supporters. Safe spaces. Angry, vulgar protests broadcast on network television under the guise of being Hollywood award ceremonies. The tragic rise of liberal civil rights attorney Ben Crump. On and on.

And if you thought the four years under Donald Trump were bad, those were a piece of cake compared with what would come. A presidential election was approaching in 2020 and the economy was booming. What were Democrats and their reliable friends in the news media left to do other than turn up the dial to a breaking point, generate mass race rioting and covid hysteria, then promise the public that it would only go away if they were put in charge?

It was fraudulent but enough voters found it persuasive. The bigger problem, however, was that by validating the tactic and voting for Joe Biden, Americans effectively encouraged the Lefts worst impulse, which is to spread its own bitter, joyless misery.

Even when Democrats emerged victorious from the suffocating bonfire of 2020, having control of the White House and all of Congress for two years, has their mood change? No. Its only gotten worse.

They may have traded their pussy hats for Fauci prayer candles, but the attitude has never been angrier or more spiteful. Vengeance has animated them each and every day.

There are scores of studies, surveys, reports and data to back up that truism. But like others, I also know it so well firsthand.

As just one (perfect) example, in November of last year I was sitting with two friends at the bar of All Purpose, a popular pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. One friend, a white woman in her early 30s, had exchanged niceties with the bar server, also a white woman who appeared to be in her 30s, and with dyed hair that made it look like a mix between silver and very light purple.

My friends and I at one point were discussing the not-guilty verdict that had just been rendered in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I mentioned that it was amazing how many people were under the impression that Rittenhouse was prosecuted for shooting blacks, when in fact all parties involved with his case were white. My friend said that nonetheless, she believed that racism colored the outcome of the trial.

What makes it racist? I asked.

Immediately, the bartender with the dye job looked up from the drink she was preparing to declare, WHAT MAKES IT RACIST IS

But just as quick as she was to insert herself, I held up the palm of my hand and said, We were just talking among ourselves.

Okay, no problem, she said. And then I watched her for the duration of our time sitting there as she walked around, alerting every other member of staff about the belligerent racist who wouldnt let her speak.

I mean, I dont know for certain thats what she was telling her coworkers, but is there any doubt? Thats precisely what an obnoxious liberal would do anywhere.

This isnt normal behavior. Normal people dont assume its their place to butt in on the discussions of strangers, let alone when those strangers will be deciding how much of a tip to leave. The level of discomfort that these monsters are willing to instill on well-meaning, unassuming people has no boundaries. It can be minor, say a cold shoulder at a social gathering, and it can be extreme to the point of obscenity.

Their thoughts and feelings about politics are no longer a piece of their lives, but all-consuming. Its not without consequence. When half the country chooses to exist in a perpetual state of irritability, vindictiveness, and intolerance, were all forced to share in the misery.

Read more:

How Democrats Made Themselves Miserable And Want You To Be Too - The Federalist

The lefts reaction to the Supreme Courts historic decision last week overturningRoe v. Wadehas been uniformly appalling but not at all surprising:violence,calls for more violence,calls to pack the court, ignore its decisions,dissolve it. In other words, about what youd expect from people who want to destroy every institution they dont control.

On the right, the reaction has been rather more mixed, mainly because of the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of the Never Trump faction, whose leading lights cant bring themselves to give credit to former President Donald Trump for accomplishing what the Republican establishment could not.

Make no mistake: without Trump,Roewould still be on the books. No other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, and no other GOP president would have yielded the results Trump did once in office.

Trump didnt just deliver three solid originalist justices to the Supreme Court, he did so despite enormous pressure from Democrats and the media pressure that any other politician almost certainly would have submitted to. Would any other Republican president have stood by Brett Kavanaugh amid the orchestrated smear campaign against him, or nominated someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than six weeks before the 2020 presidential election? Of course not, and everyone knows it.

Trump was able to do these things precisely because he possesses qualities his Never Trump critics most deplore: combativeness, a disdain for the media, political instincts that told him the Supreme Court was of paramount importance to his conservative base and that he needed to deliver on the promises he made.

Indeed, crediting Trump for his central role in the overturning ofRoeshould not be a heavy lift, even for those who are no fans of the former president. You can think of him as a kind of Balaams ass, if you like, and still recognize the essential part he played.

For Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, the easiest way to avoid this reckoning is simple hypocrisy. Just write the opposite of what you wrote in the past, and blame Trump for your intellectual dishonesty.

But for some Never Trumpers, the whole thing iscomplicated. Thats how Timothy Carney of the American Enterprise Institute put it last week ina Washington Examiner columnthat was mostly a bunch of throat-clearing about how bad Trump was for the GOP brand and how much he hurt the conservative movement.

Never mind that the conservative movement Trump supposedly hurt has been working for decades to overturnRoe v. Wade, and indeed largely defined itself through opposition to abortion in an era when every major institution in American life was arrayed against it.

Carney doesnt engage that argument, or any other, because he has no argument to make. He admits as much when he says, no issue in politics is more important than abortion because no cause is more righteous than protecting innocent babies from slaughter. No president did more good on abortion than Trump. So this makes things complicated.

No, it doesnt. It only makes things complicated if youre wedded to the idea that decorum is more important than actual victories for the conservative cause, or if you draw a paycheck from a Never Trump bastion like AEI. Maybe then its complicated. But out in the real world, where untold children will escape being butchered in the womb partly as a result of Trumps resolve, it isnt complicated at all.

Read in the best possible light, Carneys hand-wringing over Trumps role in all this is at least a tacit acknowledgement that he might have been wrong. Not so for the impossible-to-parody Kevin Williamson of National Review, who wasted no timechurning out a laughably dishonest columnabout how the end ofRoeisnt Trumps victory.

Why? Because, says Williamson, Trump did what any Republican president would have done and delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society. It does not seem to enter into Williamsons thinking that Trump perhaps turned to the Federalist Society in light of the past failures of Republican presidents to nominate justices sufficiently originalist to overturnRoe. Indeed, it was a plurality opinion from a trio of justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush that botched the chance to overturnRoe30 years ago inPlanned Parenthood v Casey, and instead maintained its central holding that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Never mind all that, says Williamson. No conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism or any other major conservative issue. But as Williamson surely knows, many conservatives (including some literate ones!) supported Trump in 2016precisely becausehe committed to nominating Supreme Court justices who were solid on judicial originalism, and evenreleased a list of possible nomineesin May 2016 something no other GOP primary candidate had ever done. Indeed, his explicit commitment to nominate originalist justices is one reason many Republicans who were on the fence about Trump decided to vote for him in the end.

None of this matters to Never Trumpers of Williamsons bent of mind. To them, reality even something as real and astounding as the end ofRoe will never overturn their smug conviction that they were right to oppose Trump. So satisfied are they in their own opinions and prejudices that nothing so mundane as actual events will ever persuade them they were wrong.

So be it. Its not like the Republican Party needs the dozens of voters whose views these pundits represent. Williamson can go on writing his snarky, nattering columns peppered with snide little insults to Trump and the people who supported him. One has to pay the bills, after all, so he might as well have fun with it. Carney can go on striving to sound measured and respectable, for all its worth.

But the rest of us on the right, including some (like me) who havecome to realize they were wrong about Trump, will remember that it took Trump, of all people, to bring about a result so glorious and long-sought that honest conservatives should be willing, even happy, to admit they were wrong.

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.

Excerpt from:

After Roe, Never Trumpers Should Just Admit They Were Wrong - The Federalist

Those who seek to destroy or delegitimize the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution are no better than those who desire to overturn or delegitimize presidential elections. In fact, they probably pose a greater long-term threat to American democracy.

Now, if you believe the above contention is hyperbole, consider that many leftists arent merely advocating for court-packing or nullification of the Dobbs decision; they justify those attacks with a litany of other grievances about the constitutional order.

Even as the Supreme Court relinquished its power, and threw the abortion issueunmentioned anywhere in the Constitutionback to the voters, a horde of j-school graduates and politicians, either ignorant of basic civics or contemptuous of them, descended with panic-stricken warnings about the demise of democracy. Almost none of their objections were grounded in any sort of legal arguments about the alleged constitutionality of terminating unwanted human beings. Instead, their case centered around the specious idea that the court had undermined the will of voters by no longer dictating abortion policy by judicial fiat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, at this point, sounds virtually indistinguishable from Senate leadership or the authoritarians writing at The Washington Post, points out that seven of the nine justices on the court were appointed by a party that hasnt won a popular vote more than once in 30 years, that one of their seats was stolen, and that several lied to Congress to secure their appointment

None of those contentions are true. Every single justice on the court, including the ones Democrats preemptively smeared as deviants to undermine the legitimacy of the court, was nominated using the prescribed constitutional method that is used by every party. And every senator who voted to confirm those justices did so using the only legal process available to them. The popular vote is not a real thing.

When Democrats win both the Senate and the White House, they have the power to nominate and confirm any justice they desire. But they also seem to be under the impression that when they win only the White House, theyre still authorized to dictate whom Republicans are allowed to confirm (as was the case with Merrick Garland). And when they are completely out of national power, they simply reject the legitimacy of justices who do not meet their invented, evolving, extraconstitutional standards. Democrats treat every victory of the opposition as dubiously attained.

The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, says former Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod. But what happens when you have a tyranny of the minority, gaming the system to promote a radical agenda that flouts the will of the majority under the guise of constitutionalism? Similar assertions were repeated across the left-wing punditsphere this weekend.

Axelrod, in true Obama fashion, begs the question. But the fact that the Electoral College doesnt align with the popular vote isnt a disqualifying aspect of American politics, it is the very point. If the Electoral College always synchronized with the outcome of the nonexistent direct democratic national tallies, it wouldnt need to exist. It isnt a loophole; it is a deliberately created mechanism that stops a handful of states from dominating policy. (Not only is the national vote immaterial, but we really have no idea what one would look like because (winning) candidates do not run up scores in big states, they campaign nationally.)

Though I do wonder what remedy Axelrod or Ocasio-Cortez have in mind for this supposed problem? Should the GOP abdicate the presidency to a Democrat every time it fails to win the nonexistent popular vote? Should Republican senators from smaller states ignore their constituents and ask Elizabeth Warren for permission to support judicial nominees? Sounds like one-party rule.

None of this is to even mention that a lack of national legislation on an issue isnt a tyranny of the minority. Its federalism. There is no other way to keep a sprawling, geographically, ethnically, culturally, religiously diverse nation free and self-governing. Thats why enumerated powers exist. And thats also why the increasingly radical progressive left is obsessed with getting rid of the filibuster, the only thing preserving some semblance of legislative limitation on federal power. The only people who refer to federalism as minority rule are people who believe that Americans need to be ruled over in the first place. Indeed, the court did not stop Illinois from making its own abortion policies. Its Axelrod who wants the court to compel, by edict, abortion policy in states like Mississippi.

Democrats want the Supreme Court, created to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws free from political pressures, to follow public opinion polls. The only way we can truly know how voters feel about abortion is by subjecting the issue to the democratic process. Whether Roe, a legal decision, is popular is irrelevantthough its unsurprising the majority of Americans, after decades of media championing abortion, know little about it. Because, at some point, voters will decide if the Democratic Partys new position, government-funded abortion on demand until crowning, or the position of states like Mississippi, 15 weeks bans, are more radical.

When the Supreme Court concocted the constitutional right to abortion in 1973, the pro-life movement didnt promise to dismantle the system; rather it spent 50 years creating an intellectual and political movement that would begin to restore proper constitutional limits. They voted for presidents who promised to put textualists on the bench and elected senators who would confirm them. If youre unhappy with those rules, you are free to amend the Constitution. But, for the contemporary left, democracy isnt just a euphemism for policies we support anymore, its a pernicious belief that Republicans have a responsibility to live in a political system that exists outside of the Constitution. And a system with two sets of rules is untenable.

More here:

Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic - The Federalist

Your labor was not in vain. The national regime of abortion on demand imposed by Roe v. Wade is over, thanks as much to the humble and unheralded as to the powerful and connected.

Yes, the Dobbs decision was made by Supreme Court justices, appointed by presidents and confirmed by senators, and they deserve the praise they receive. But the pro-life movement was sustained by the millions of Americans who just wouldnt quit.

They didnt quit when the Supreme Court said the issue was settled, then said so again. They didnt quit when all of the cultural powers-that-be from academia to Hollywood disdained and reviled them. They didnt quit despite decades of minimal gains and routine betrayals by politicians and judges.

Instead, they kept marching and praying. They kept volunteering and voting. They kept writing and speaking. And they were not just political activists. They built networks of crisis pregnancy centers and other charities to help women and children in need, providing everything from diapers to baby formula to health care.

Within families, churches, and communities, they made innumerable decisions to protect human life. They became adoptive and foster parents to care for the abused and abandoned. They are the grandparents who helped when told of an unexpected pregnancy, rather than encouraging the disposal of the unplanned child.

There are, of course, professional pro-lifers leading and staffing organizations. But the pro-life movement is sustained by its volunteers. And they are remarkable for their persistence and their unselfishness. They donate their time and treasure to a movement that they know will not make them safer, healthier, or wealthier.

They were not fighting for their own rights. They were not lobbying for more benefits for themselves. In a political system and culture dominated by self-interest, they have never demanded anything for themselves.

It is, of course, true that abortion is generally destructive to society. It breaks the primal social bond of mother, father, and child and hardens the hearts it doesnt stop. Leaving a womb-shaped hole in legal protection for human life precludes a culture and politics of real solidarity.

But although pro-lifers recognized these broad evils of abortion culture, they are not what motivated the movement. If that was all they cared about, it would have been easier to just work on protecting their own families and communities (which is indeed a moral obligation). But pro-lifers care about the specific injustice of abortion: that it is the deliberate, violent taking of an innocent human life.

So they spoke for those whose voices could not yet be heard, and who were being discarded as inconvenient and unwanted. They marched and voted, yes. But they also gave and counseled and helped and taught. They just wouldnt quit. Now, they finally won.

This is not, of course, a final victory. Overturning Roe only returns the question of abortion to the democratic process, and now even as some states restrict it others are funding it. But ending Roe breaks the legal siege that had trapped the pro-life cause, subjecting every restriction on abortion to the caprice of the federal judiciary.

Pro-lifers should rejoice and be rejuvenated by the end of Roe. This is an opportunity not only to restrict and even ban elective abortion in many states, but also to develop affirmatively pro-life and pro-family policies. There are pro-lifer scholars, such as my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Patrick Brown, who have been preparing for this, and their suggestions should be given consideration.

There will, of course, be disagreements about the best way to do this, and it is possible that one size will not fit all. What works for Utah might not work as well in Alabama. But the pro-lifers will be there, pushing year after year, in every state, to protect human life in law and provide help when children and families need it.

The battle against Roe is over, but the war for a pro-life American has just begun, as pro-abortion state legislatures are embracing abortion more than ever. Although pro-lifers in those states will have a harder task before them, they can take courage from knowing that victory is possible. The decades-long struggle to overturn Roe proves the pro-life movement will endure, and that it can win. And they will keep fighting, even if it takes generations.

The Dobbs decision is a victory, above all, for the humans in utero whose lives may now be protected in laws. And it is due to all of those who labored in the pro-life movement without knowing if this day would ever come.

This win is for the volunteer receptionist at the crisis pregnancy center. For the doctor spending Saturday mornings providing free ultrasounds and exams. For the grandmother quietly praying the rosary outside of an abortion clinic.

Its for the college students who memorialized Roe on their campuses with fields of crosses despite insults and vandalism. For those running baby bottle drives for ministries providing support and resources to pregnant women. For the activists who worked to elect pro-life leaders locally and nationally, and the voters who voted for life, even as everyone said their vote never mattered.

For all of these and more, your labor has not been in vain. Lives were saved, a pro-life culture was nourished, and politicians and judges finally corrected one of this nations greatest evils.

There is more to do, but for now, thank you.

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

The rest is here:

Dear Prolifers: Your Labor Was Not In Vain - The Federalist

As soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling finally overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision that had so roiled the nation for nearly 50 years, Democrats and their allies who control corporate media began asserting it would be a political boon for their party.

Democrats see abortion as a big base motivator and a potential winning issue with independents, claimed Politico.

Democrats could certainly use some help. The party controls all of Washington, D.C. Voters have indicated theyre prepared to deliver large Republican gains in November in response to a series of Democrat policy failures leading to a looming recession, labor problems, supply chain disruptions, high gas prices, rising crime, another foreign war without a strategy for victory, and a completely out of control border.

But there are several problems for Democrats hoping to stem the losses, including that the general Democrat position of abortion on demand until the moment of birth is far too radical to gain politically in most areas of the country. Even CBS polling found that only 17 percent of Americans agree with such an extreme stance.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision, despite the media disinformation, simply returns abortion law to the states, enabling citizens and their elected representatives to debate and set abortion laws and policies. Roe had falsely decreed that a right to abortion was in the Constitution, and therefore beyond public debate, a view the court flatly and finally rejected last week.

Abortion is a hotly debated topic, and neither those who oppose or support it are likely to be fully happy about public opinion. Most Americans strongly oppose abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, but most Americans also support some allowances for abortion at earlier stages in pregnancy. In May, a Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans support making abortion illegal or legal only in certain circumstances.

While the decision may help Democrats hold onto a few suburban seats Republicans had hoped to wrestle back from the party in power, it is unlikely to help them in battleground states and districts where Republicans are experiencing dramatic gains. California and New York may be ready to pass even more radical abortion legislation, but not every state is as leftist as those are. And Democrats and the media are in for a rude awakening if they think everyone is as extreme as they are in their bubbles.

For example, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced his plans to pass protections for babies who have reached 15 weeks of age in the womb. Thats the type of popular protection that will pass in a swing state, but would be viewed as anathema for New York newsrooms. A recent Fox poll found that a majority oppose abortion after 15 weeks. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal found more support than opposition for 15-week abortion bans like those now permitted in America.

So take a state like Nevada. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election, voted in May for a bill that would legalize abortion to the moment of birth, forbid states from enacting protections for unborn life, and expand taxpayer funding. Her opponent Adam Laxalt is endorsed by pro-life groups and supports at least some protections for unborn children.

As attorney general of Nevada, he signed onto a legal brief assisting the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were facing crippling fines from the Obama administration for not funding abortifacients. Is Cortez Mastos radical stance really going to help her in a state where one out of every four residents is Hispanic, many of them Roman Catholic or evangelical? Is she really going to get major traction on her stance that its okay for children to have their lives violently ended in the womb for no other reason than theyre the wrong sex?

Pennsylvania also has a Senate race, and the Democrat nominee John Fetterman already publicly announced his support for the ruthless abortion-until-birth legislation Cortez Masto voted for. The legislation which had bipartisan opposition but still had 48 senators and 218 congressmen voting for it explicitly states the right to abortion on demand shall not be limited or otherwise infringed.

Fetterman is running against Mehmet Oz, who has stated hes pro-life but would support popular exceptions to abortion bans. Is Fettermans extreme stance going to help or hurt him in November? Ditto New Hampshires Maggie Hassan.

In North Carolina, Democrat nominee Cheri Beasley has made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the central argument of her campaign. She wants federal legislation to codify this view. By contrast, her opponent Ted Budd says he thinks states should handle abortion law and he has focused his campaign on how to improve the economy.

Polls show that voters are dramatically more worried about the economy than focused on abortion. Traditionally, those who care the most about abortion tend to vote for Republicans. Even if Budd had an extreme pro-life position, and he doesnt, the issue would probably break 50-50 in the southern state, rather than be a huge boon for Beasley.

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life: that ending human life in the womb should be legal for any reason up until the moment the baby is being born.

The signature legislation nearly all of them voted for weeks ago would have forbidden state-level protections for babies with Down syndrome or other disabilities, overturned informed consent laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court, prohibited state restrictions blocking abortion when the unborn child can feel pain, and completely removed conscientious protections for health-care employees who oppose abortion. This is an extremely radical set of positions. For instance, 75 percent of Americans support protecting the conscience rights of health-care employees. And seven out of ten Americans oppose aborting children because they have Down syndrome.

Its also not just that Democrats have to affirmatively support that view but that they will also be saddled with the policy position that any restriction, no matter how minor and no matter how popular, such as a 15-week abortion ban, is untenable.

Democrats and their media allies are trying to spread conspiracy theories about banning contraception or same-sex marriage to make Republicans seem less moderate, but those efforts will suffer from the lack of evidence to support them. The pro-life movement has been vibrant and active for 50 solid years, marching each January in the nations capital, and working diligently to pass laws protecting human lives. There is no movement for the conspiracy theories being spread by corporate media.

Few people realize how radical the American abortion position was prior to Dobbs. This week, Noah Smith tweeted a picture of how restrictive European abortion laws are relative to the Roe era in the United States, adding, Wow. Today I learned that Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than most of the U.S. did up until this week.

While pro-lifers have known that for decades, the media run by people with extremely liberal views on abortion have hidden those facts from their readers and viewers. But Americans are learning these facts about the Democrat position and how radical it is.

Another problem for Democrats is that prior to Dobbs, the main campaign strategy was to gin up hysteria about the January 6 riot. Since the leak of the draft decision, abortion supporters have engaged in campaigns of violence against churches and maternal care centers.

Last week, prominent Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Joe Biden began calling on their base voters to protest in the streets. Leading leftists also claimed the Supreme Court was now illegitimate, because it had ruled on the law in a way that differed from their preferred policies. Media figures began spreading disinformation about abortion being banned in America.

It will be exceedingly difficult to continue the January 6 show trial while this widespread and orchestrated campaign of violence is happening nationwide.

Exceedingly few Americans support Democrats policies in favor of abortion until the moment of birth. DC-based media and Democrat strategists exist in a bubble that isolates them from public opinion.

But elections happen in places where views have to be explicitly stated and contend with public opinion. Outside of a small handful of House districts in suburban areas dominated by wealthy and college-educated white women, the more GOP candidates speak confidently and unapologetically about their views, they will have the political edge.

Read this article:

Democrats' Abortion Views Are Far Too Radical To Benefit From Post-Roe - The Federalist

A little over a week ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) authorized the first round of Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 shots for infants as young as 6 months old. The decision came following a unanimous agreement among members of the FDAs advisory panel, who recommended the jabs for children under the age of five.

Together, with science leading the charge, we have takenanother important stepforwardin our nations fight against COVID-19, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky in a statement on the matter. We know millions of parents and caregivers are eager to get their young children vaccinated, and with todays decision, they can.

Walensky would later go on to falsely claim during a Thursday press conference that Covid-19 has been one of the top five causes of death for children since the beginning of its outbreak, making her the third CDC official this month to make this assertion.

In greenlighting the use of Covid jabs for infants, the CDC and FDA also officially made the United States the first country in the world to do so. U.S. President Joe Biden took to Twitter to celebrate the decision, saying that For the first time in our fight against this pandemic, nearly every American can now have access to life-saving vaccines.

Similar sentiments were also echoed by White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who repeatedly emphasized how America would be the first country on earth to give mRNA vaccines to its youngest children.

As has long been established, children are the least at-risk age demographic with respect to Covid-19. As of June 2, 2022, for instance, 0-to 17-year-olds comprised approximately 0.1 percent of the total Covid-related deaths in the United States. Recent studies conducted in Sweden and Germany have also documented similar trends, with both analyses finding Covid fatalities among healthy children in each European country to be nearly nonexistent.

In addition to children not being super-spreaders of the virus, research shows the majority of American children have already recovered from Covid and therefore possess immunity to reinfection. According to the CDCs own data, approximately 75 percent of children in the United States have recovered from Covid. Numerous scientific studies have shown individuals previously infected with the virus possess robust natural immunity.

In light of such minimal risk to children and that the jabs dont stop individuals from getting or spreading the virus, medical professionals have begun to raise concerns about the U.S. governments push to vaccinate infants against Covid, given the risk of harmful side effects balanced against the potential benefits. While speaking with radio host Dan Bongino on Fox News, renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough expressed dismay at the FDAs decision and noted the effects of the virus are characteristically a mild syndrome in children when compared to the elderly.

We know even if [the vaccines are] used in kids, there wont be any differences in rates of Covid-19 serious outcomes, he said, referencing two studies on the subject. Theres no reductions in hospitalizations and deaths in the randomized trials. And, Dan, we have no assurances that these are safe over the long term.

Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, also voiced concerns about the FDA and CDCs actions and criticized the data the health agencies cited as justification for their position.

There was NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE in the vaccine study cited by FDA &CDC to recommend the vax in babies through kids<5, Makary said in a tweet. Any respected medical journal would normally reject this study for publication. How does the CDC so vigorously recommend this with such strong language?

Makary later expanded upon his assessment in a recent Fox News op-ed, saying the studies cited by the federal government were too small to achieve statistical significance when evaluating efficacy against mild or severe COVID-19 infection.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a recent press conference also highlighted the medical concerns about giving healthy babies Covid shots.

We are not gonna have any [state] programs where were trying to jab 6-month-old babies with mRNA. Thats just the reality, he said, while referencing several data points on the subject. The White House is bragging that were the only country that is trying to do mRNA shots for infants Theres nothing wrong with being the lone ranger if youre right, but the other countries in Europe that are going a different direction, similar to the direction Floridas gone, they have been right on Covid way more than [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and his crew have been throughout this whole thing.

Germany and France, along with Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, have all restricted the distribution of the Moderna Covid shots for individuals under the age of 30, all citing the documented risk of heart inflammation among young people as justification. Florida has also taken similar actions, with the states Department of Health becoming the first in the nation to recommend against the use of Covid shots for children back in March.

The willingness of DeSantis to listen to medical professionals who courageously raise questions about the CDC and FDAs decision-making process is a much-needed breath of fresh air. For too long, Americas health bureaucracy has operated with little oversight, with agencies like the CDC and FDA apparently functioning as rubber stamps for Big Pharma rather than legitimate scientific institutions.

While the decision to vaccinate ones child is an individual choice for parents, the blanket authorization from the CDC and FDA to jab infants against scientific evidence accepted by many scientists and peer nations deserves far greater scrutiny and investigation. Doing so, however, would mean acting in the best interests of their voters and the public, something Republicans frequently fail to do.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Read the rest here:

Why Aren't More Republicans Noting Risks Of Infant Covid Shots? - The Federalist