Daily Archives: October 3, 2023

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is under investigation from both House Republicans and the agencys inspector generals office for conflicts of interest related to recent decisions for which her daughter lobbied. A new report out last month reveals her daughters ties to a communist Cuban solidarity group.

In June, House Republicans launched a probe into Secretary Haalands decision to close drilling opportunities in areas that surround New Mexicos Chaco Cultural National Historical Park. The Interior Department implemented a 10-mile radius around the world heritage site, now cut off from new oil and gas development for the next 20 years. The decision is detrimental to the Navajo Nation, now unable to responsibly harvest natural resources in their own backyard to a cost of $194 million over two decades. Haalands daughter, Somah,works for the Pueblo Action Alliance (PAA), a far-left Albuquerque-based climate group that prominently opposed drilling in the region.

Prior to joining the Biden administration as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Secretary Haaland was evidently involved with the Pueblo Action Alliance, lawmakers noted. Secretary Haaland has purportedly met with PAA leaders during her time as Secretary of the Interior to discuss PAAs opposition to oil and gas production on federal lands.

Republicans added lawmakers are concerned with Secretary Haalands compliance with ethical obligations and potential conflicts of interest given PAAs opposition to oil and gas production on federal lands, Secretary Haalands involvement with PAA, Somahs work with PAA to limit domestic energy production.

Representatives also raised issue with Secretary Haalands husband, Skip Sayre, as chief of sales and marketing for the Laguna Development Corporation, the business arm of the Laguna Pueblo.

The non-profit government watchdog, Protect the Publics Trust, filed a separate ethics complaint over the issue with the Interior Departments inspector general in August. The complaint referenced Secretary Haalands prior participation in a video by the PAA narrated by her daughter focused on drilling in New Mexico.

A new report out in September from the bilingual Hispanic website ADN America documents Somah Haalands relationship with a Cuban solidarity group linked to the communist regimes intelligence apparatus.

The PAA, ADN America reported, openly associates with the Venceremos Brigade (VB), a U.S.-based organization that facilitates trips for young Americans to visit Cuba, where they are reportedly greeted and groomed by Cuban intelligence agents.

Somah Haaland began working with the Pueblo Action Alliance (PAA) in 2020, a New Mexico indigenous rights group that openly associates with the VB, and whose executive director, Julia Bernal, traveled with the group to Cuba the year before where it was hosted by the Institute of Friendship Along with the Peoples (ICAP), a regime sponsored organization led by one of Cubas most notorious spy, Fernando Gonzlez Llort-and a former member of the Wasp Network who was sentenced to prison in the U.S. for espionage.

According to the Cuban outlet, the Venceremos Brigade has a history of targeting American activists.

Since its inception in 1969, the Venceremos Brigade took aim at influencing Americans interested in politics, particularly those with a sympathetic ear, the paper reported. In 1977, the New York Times revealed details from an August 1976 FBI report that found Cuban intelligence agents arranged for American youths to be inculcated with revolutionary fervor and, occasionally, to be trained in practical weaponry by Cuban military officers through the socalled Venceremos Brigades.'

Somah Haaland, a New Mexico activist and daughter of the U.S. interior secretary, certainly fits the bill as a top target for the Cuban group. In February, emails discovered by Protect the Publics Trust revealed the PAA was behind the insurrection at the Interior Department two years ago.

Read more:

Haaland's Daughter Tied Cuban Communist Solidarity Group - The Federalist

This month, Chinese military flights near Taiwan reached an all-time high. In a single day in September, aircraft from the Peoples Liberation Army crossed into Taiwans Air Defense Identification Zone more than 100 times. As Chinas campaign of military intimidation toward the self-governing island reaches new heights, its important to remember why U.S. support for the island nation is more vital than ever.

Deterring China from launching an invasion of Taiwan and dominating the worlds largest market zone is a vital U.S. interest. This is not simply because Taiwan is part of an esotericglobal struggle between democracies and autocracies, but because its loss to China would have grave consequences for American security and prosperity.

Popularly dubbed the worlds most dangerous flashpoint, Taiwan is rarely far from the headlines. In recent years, under Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, Chinas rhetoric and military intimidation tactics aimed at the island have grown more aggressive and escalatory, sounding alarm bells in Washington and among Americas regional allies.

In 2021, Admiral Phil Davidson, head of the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) warned that the PRC threat to Taiwan would manifest in the next six years. Last year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken lamented that Beijing [is] determined to pursue reunification [with Taiwan] on a much faster timeline than previously thought.

Even if no formal invasion timeline has been set, there is no denying Chinas rhetoric and activities have grown increasingly provocative. In recent years, it has conducted live-fire missile tests and military exercises around the island and encircled Taiwan with warships to conduct a mock blockade. Beijing has levied draconian economic sanctions on the island and has whittled down the number of countries formally recognizing Taiwan from 22 to just 13.

We know why Taiwan matters a great deal to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). For one thing, the party has closely tied its legitimacy and national narrative to plans for reunification with the island. For another, Taiwans status as a thriving democracy also exposes as fraudulent the CCPs narrative that the Chinese people are ill-suited to political freedom and democratic governance.

Finally, the party sees Taiwans de facto independent status as a painful reminder of Chinas century of humiliation. It portrays reunification as a vital step in Chinas national rejuvenation, a project that would have China resume its rightful place in the partys view not only as Asias hegemon but as the worlds most powerful nation.

Taiwans security also matters a great deal to the U.S. The island has a vital role to play in denying Chinas hegemony over vital global supply chains and maritime trading routes. It is also essential in preserving the integrity of Americas First Island Chain defense strategy, and in maintaining a coalition of Indo-Pacific capitals dedicated to resisting Chinas imperial ambitions.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have terrible consequences for the U.S. economy. The costs to American workers in terms of wages and jobs lost would be severe.Taiwan is the fifth-largest economy in Asia and a top-10 trading partner of the U.S. Most importantly, an astonishing 90 percent of the worlds most advanced semiconductors are manufactured in Taiwan. These tiny chips are critical components of nearly every electronic system in the United States from smartphones and laptops to fighter jets; without them, the U.S. economy would grind to ahalt.

Over the long term, the U.S. must seek to improve its resilience to supply-chain shocks through increased domestic manufacturing and pro-growth reforms to incentivize investment in this critical sector. For the foreseeable future, however, Taiwan will play a central role in the global supply of advanced semiconductors, and that supply would be badly disrupted in any conflict across the Taiwan Strait. Worse still, if China were able to assume control of Taiwans semiconductor industry, it would grant Beijing enormous coercive leverage over the U.S.

Taiwan is a key node in the first island chain of military outposts spanning north to south from Japan to the Indonesian archipelago. If Beijing conquers Taiwan, it will have broken through this first line of defense, offering the Chinese military easy access to the Western Pacific and positioning China to use military force far more easily against Japan or the Philippines.

This matters not only because America is treaty-bound to defend both allies, but also because Beijing would be in a stronger position to compel regional capitals. It would also increase the threat posed by the Chinese military to Guam, Hawaii, and other U.S. territories, partners, and personnel in the Pacific.

Across the Indo-Pacific, nations expect the United States to defend Taiwan from a Chinese assault. If China can get away with seizing Taiwan, it would send a clear signal to the rest of Asia: Youre on your own. Other nations would no longer be as confident in Americas willingness or ability to defend them from Chinas wrath, and as a result, might be more likely to cozy up to China.

This would be disastrous because preventing China from dominating the Indo-Pacific will require a collaborative effort between the U.S. and its partners and allies.Only the U.S. can lead such an effort, but it cannot defend against Chinas imperial ambitions alone. It is therefore imperative that Americas Asian partners and allies also step up, especially by strengthening their own defenses and working together with the U.S. and each other to deter and defend against Chinese aggression.

Far from an idealistic crusade on behalf of democracy,Americas interest in Taiwan is based on a pragmatic assessment of geography, economic security, alliance management, great power politics, and military deterrence in a web of overlapping national interests that intersect at this small island in the Pacific.The U.S. simply cannot allow the CCP to obtain hegemonic influence over the worlds largest market zone, which would give it enormous power to engage in economic coercion against the U.S. and others.

Simply put, the U.S. has a vested interest in denying Beijings imperial ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. Taiwan is central to that effort.

Even as we acknowledge Taiwans vital importance to the U.S., we should be clear: America does not seek a war with China over Taiwan. Quite the opposite. Our apex priority is to deter the PRC from ever launching an invasion. That will require Taiwan to do more, including increasing defense spending and adopting a more effective defense strategy.

Most importantly, it will require ensuring that, through enhanced U.S. military deterrence, the CCP recognizes that an invasion of Taiwan would not only fail but also prove exceptionally costly for China and potentially fatal for any Chinese leader responsible for the catastrophe.

Jeff M. Smith is the Director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Continued here:

Taiwan Losing To China Would Have Dire Consequences For The ... - The Federalist

As funding for the federal government is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, a group of Senate Republicans hoped to appease both parties by adding a border security amendment to a bill that would continue funding at its current level and send billions of taxpayer funds to Ukraine.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted Friday evening that the Senate bill is dead on arrival in the House. Sen. Mike Lee called out Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the handful of Republican senators for writing the bill in secret as a manipulative effort to give an additional $6.2 billion to Ukraine.

On Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters the Senate was trying to find a way to grow the vote to avoid a shutdown, but also to have real teeth on border and immigration reform that is credible and could potentially get done. By Friday, a proposed border security amendment reviewed by The Federalist was circulating Senate offices, but had no real teeth at all.

The stated goal of the amendment was to ensure the continuing resolution can get the 60 votes necessary from both Republicans and Democrats by enforcing immigration laws and defunding Bidens resettlement operation, without raising spending.

The amendment would defund the transporting of migrants and reduce funding for the FEMA Shelter and Services Program. With no funding for transportation or sheltering services, migrants would be stuck wherever they illegally crossed the border, effectively creating a Remain in Texas policy.

The amendment also reallocates funds from shelter services to hire more Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, while ignoring that there is nothing to stop these executive branch hires from shifting law enforcement hires to processing duties, as is currently happening. This move also ignores the ongoing hiring and employee retention crises these agencies are facing despite raises and bonuses.

Finally, the amendment also claims it would require the $1.7 billion Congress has already set aside to fund the border wall to be spent by the Biden administration, but its unclear how such an amendment would force the administration and its agencies to spend money on a wall its refused to build for years.

Republican senators reportedly working on this amendment include Sens. Bill Hagerty, John Thune, Thom Tillis, James Lankford, Susan Collins, plus independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. These offices did not return requests for public comment before press time.

Sen. Katie Britt was also rumored to be working on the amendment. Britt told The Federalist We need a full return to President Trumps Remain in Mexico policy, and Ill only support a measure that accomplishes true border security rather than border management, but did not address whether her office was working on the amendment in question or not.

Cornyns press secretary Tatum Wallace told The Federalist that the Texas senator isnt working on any border plan, despite Cornyns claims earlier in the week.

The Federalists John Daniel Davidson contributed to this report.

See more here:

Senators Mull Border Clause To Bait House Into More Ukraine Aid - The Federalist

Recently at The Federalist, Nathan Stone wrote of some of the unfortunate consequences of the fall of Roe v. Wade, noting that the adage Be careful what you wish for seems to be in play, as the pushback from proponents of abortion has been dismayingly robust.

Stone cites reports of rising abortion rates in many states and recent defeats of pro-life legislation, concluding that the root problem is a lukewarm Christianity: The core reason the right cannot, in many cases, compete with the lefts energy is because many on the right do not believe. This situation is not helped by the fact that many American churches are spineless at best and conquered provinces at worst.

Stone goes on to call for a reimagined Christianity in which the symbol of Christ as good shepherd [is] replaced with the Christ Knight, the Christ Warlord. People but especially men need a strong figure to follow, to rally around, especially if the venture is dangerous. A Son of God going forth to war can do that.

Stone is spot on in observing that many people who call themselves Christians dont actually understand or believe in the real Jesus. But his call for a repackaged Jesus that people can more readily get behind is not the solution.

Meanwhile, writing for Salvo, Daniel Witt similarly mourns the current state of the American experiment, lamenting the lost ideal of John Winthrops city on a hill, which Witt describes as a virtuous civilization providing an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Witt says America is indeed a city on a hill, but rather than providing a positive example, it is having a corrupting influence: The United States of America displays a mockery of Christ. The world, by and large, likes what it sees. My conclusion from the experience of living abroad is that Christian leaders in America need to take a hard look at our place in the nation, and the nations place in the world.

Witt, like Stone, correctly observes that Americas Christian roots shriveled long ago. Politicians may still appeal to faith, family, and country, but the words ring hollow these days. Americans dont go to church, dont uphold traditional family values, and dont love their country.

But the problem is not an American illness in need of an American cure. Its clear that America long ago strayed from its Christian founding. But at its core, Americas decline into depravity is not a national problem, but an individual one not a political problem, but a spiritual one.

Spiritual problems are not solved by marketing campaigns or national movements but by encounters with the one true God, who defies any attempt to categorize or use Him for human purposes. And those encounters dont happen on a national level, with America repenting for its collective failure, but on an individual level, with the sinner coming face to face with the reality of his sinfulness and his need for a Savior.

In 1993, Michael Card wrote the now-classic, contemporary Christian song Heal Our Land for the National Day of Prayer. Its a beautiful song, and I admit to getting a lump in my throat when I hear it. The lyrics draw on 2 Chronicles 7:14: If my people who are called by my namehumble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

There is certainly nothing wrong with praying for a change in the direction of this country. I dont know that I have ever, in my lifetime, felt so discouraged about Americas future. Prayer is in order.

But Gods words in 2 Chronicles are not about America. They are about the ancient Israelites, Gods people chosen for the purpose of sending His Son into the world to redeem it. The land to be healed in 2 Chronicles is not the American nation but the Hebrew one, and the goal is not ultimately to save the Israelites for their own sake but so that Gods eternal purposes might be carried out.

Lutheran scholar Rev. Joel Biermann has written extensively on what Lutherans refer to as the two realms or kingdoms, the two spheres in which Christians live and operate. Biermann describes it this way:

Simply put, the teaching of the two realms helps us see that God is directly involved in caring for His creation in two different but complementary ways. In the spiritual realm, He answers our need for a right relationship with Him and through His church gives us forgiveness and grace in Christ. In the temporal realm, He enables us to live in right relationships with one another as He provides for all that we need to live in this world and through His appointed government extends His justice in the world (Rom. 13:17). The realms are not in opposition or competition, but together work to accomplish Gods purpose of claiming, preserving, saving and finally restoring the whole creation.

Christian Americans would do well to understand and embrace the distinction. America is not going to save the world. America may, in fact, be lost. But those who trust not in princes need not fear. An old Latin phrase is helpful here: Ora et labora, or Pray and work.

If you want to help America, pray and work. First, go to church not a church that makes sweeping promises about what America can accomplish if only we put God back in our schools and institutions, but a church that says to you, individually, You are a poor, miserable sinner. You are helpless to address that problem on your own. The only answer is Jesus and His death on a cross to pay the price for your sins. Look to Him, trust in His promises, and be saved.

Second, go to work. Work to care for your family. Work to serve your neighbor. Obey the law. Vote.

Jesus made it abundantly clear: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. For this purpose I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:36-37).

The truth to which Jesus came to bear witness is not primarily about our temporal problems (although He certainly cares about those things) but about who He is: the Son of God who came to earth to provide a solution to the problem at the root of all other problems namely, sin.

That sin rests deep in the heart of each of us, and we cant fix it. Jesus came to answer our need for a Savior, to fix what we cannot. He did so by taking the sin of the entire world upon Himself and carrying it to the grave. He then went down to hell itself, where He proclaimed victory over sin, death, and Satan before rising from the dead and ascending to His Father in heaven.

Now all who live in Jesus have the promise of following the path He walked. The path is not all glory. It is likely a lot of pain and suffering. It may even include the failure of a once-great nation. But its ultimate destination is an eternity with Jesus and an end to the maladies of this world.

Read the original here:

Jesus Cares More About Saving You Than Saving America - The Federalist

Three pretty unnerving things have happened within the past week: Target cited crime and safety as reasons for closing another nine locations, a congressman was carjacked at gunpoint, and a Philadelphia-based journalist was murdered in his home.

Welcome to the United States of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. We hope you enjoy your stay!

To be fair, there isnt yet a ton of information available about the homicide. All we know is that the victim is a left-winger named Josh Kruger and that he spent much of his days tweeting about how exaggerated the nationwide violent crime spikes have been. A local paper described him as a former city spokesperson who advocated for more support for some of the citys most vulnerable residents (aka any ethnic minority who knowingly commits a crime or mooches off their parents well into adulthood).

Kruger had also posted a tweet mocking Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams for predicting in 2020 that there would be another wave of violent crime if Joe Biden were elected. The Dilbert dude is like Nostradamus, Kruger wrote in sarcasm. Look at this prediction from 2020. Wow. Eerie.

He was killed two days later. Police havent identified a suspect.

But police a few miles south in Washington, D.C., do have an idea as to who it was that carjacked House Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar at gunpoint Monday night: Three black males wearing all black clothing, said an area alert. Carjackings in the metropolitan area have increased by more than five times the 2018 rate.

As for Target, the corporate arm announced last week that it was shutting down nine stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. All of the affected businesses are in cities where their Democrat mayors and state prosecutors determined it safe to legalize crime by way of scaling down law enforcement and letting looters and assailants get away: San Francisco, Portland, New York, and Seattle.

Every Democrat in office should have to answer for why the incidents above are good things. Of course, theyll say, Its unacceptable, and then theyll head to their next donor event and brag about all theyve done in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (aka the three unclean spirits).

By their telling, crime isnt the problem. The problem is the demographic balance of who is prosecuted for crime. If its not balanced, they say, prosecute the criminals less! Diversity, equity and inclusion cannot coexist with law enforcement.

This is always how things were going to end. Less policing means more crime. Less prosecuting means more crime. Higher tolerance for crime means more crime. And then businesses shut down. Nobody wants to do business in high crime. Nobody wants to live in high crime. Except for people like Josh Kruger, who well you know

Its diversity! Its equity! Its inclusion! Stay safe out there.

Read more here:

Carjackings, Looting, And Murder: 'Equity' In Action! - The Federalist

When he saw U.S. institutions ignoring Swedish data out in June 2020 showing children hardly transmitted or contracted Covid-19 at school, Harvard University Professor of Medicine Martin Kulldorff decided to start speaking more on Twitter (now called X).

I have three children and I need to be able to see them in the eyes, Kulldorff told The Federalist when asked why he risked his position at Harvard, government research grants, even friendships, for publicly opposing lockdowns and vaccine mandates. If Im a scientist, I have to humbly seek the truth and honestly communicate that. I dont think theres another choice as a scientist. It was obvious that we had to speak up.

The epidemiologist and infectious disease expert with more than 200 research articles published in peer-reviewed publications and cited more than 25,000 times had tried to make scientific arguments against lockdowns in U.S. publications since February 2020, but he could only get his views into Swedish publications, he told The Federalist in a phone interview Wednesday.

So Kulldorff tried getting his support for focused protection instead of mass lockdowns out on social media. In his view, it was especially important that American children be allowed to go back to school, while neighbors continued to take precautions on behalf of the elderly and others at high risk of a Covid infection, unlike most children.

In attempting to speak on X, however, Kulldorff was blocked by what a lawsuit later discovered was a vast censorship enterprise throttling Americans ideas online at the behest of multitudes of government officials and government-funded proxies. The Biden administration has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which paused lower courts injunctions against the censorship while considering whether to take the case. In the meantime, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is also considering whether to re-expand an injunction against the censorship to more federal agencies based on further evidence.

Kulldorff is a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden. His New Civil Liberties Alliance lawyers have stressed that Department of Justice lawyers arguing to keep government manipulating what Americans can see and say online have not contested any of the shocking facts the lawsuit has uncovered. Instead, they defend the censorship as necessary to stop misinformation.

Yet it wasnt just that the government censored false information but it censored true information, Kulldorff noted. Of course, the First Amendment should be valid for both, but its also true that the government censored true information, and people died because of that.

One of the true things government censored, he said, is that people who survive Covid-19 develop robust immunity against a repeat infection. The immunity conferred on survivors of most diseases, Weve known about this since 400 BC with the Athenian plague. Weve known about this for 2,000 years, yet they questioned that for Covid, Kulldorff said. Its astonishing.

Acting on this long-proven scientific fact by hiring naturally immune workers in nursing homes, for example, could have prevented deaths in one of the highest-risk locations.

Either the 5th Circuit or Supreme Court could grant further discovery in this case that would reveal even more than the current 20,000 pages of evidence and eight depositions of government officials engaged in online censorship.

Theres a lot left to learn, Kulldorff pointed out, because we only did a deposition for a few government officials and there are many more officials mentioned in the emails between the government and the social media companies that we received as part of the discovery process.

When the lawsuit was filed, Kulldorff and other plaintiffs including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University had no idea how expansively the White House and other federal agencies including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security were naming Americans social media accounts and keywords to platforms to ban and throttle, Kulldorff said. They just knew social media platforms kept banning their accounts, posts, and ideas when they publicly disagreed with federal officials.

Open records requests before the lawsuit revealed that high-level federal officials moved to stop people from reading or hearing about the Great Barrington Declaration that Kulldorff coauthored with Bhattacharya and Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, other epidemiologists with sterling professional records.

The October 2020 declaration was eventually co-signed by nearly 1 million people, including more than 62,000 verified scientists and health-care professionals. It argues for focused protection, or extra measures to protect those at high risk from Covid while ending lockdowns, because for the vast majority of people the costs of lockdowns were greater than their risks from Covid. (This publication featured similar arguments as early as March 2020.)

[F]our days after the Declarations publication, then-Director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, emailed Dr. Anthony Fauci and Cliff Lane at NIH/NIAID about the Great Barrington Declaration, says the plaintiffs Supreme Court filing. This email stated: Hi Tony and Cliff, See: https://gbdeclaration.org/. This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises.'

Instead of engaging with these scientists, however, it appears federal officials sought to secretly shut down their ability to communicate with people online. The lawsuit notes that soon after the declaration was published, Google made it harder for people to find in online searches and elevated hit pieces on the declaration in its search results.

YouTube parent company Googlecontrols 92 percentof the worlds search results, this author noted recently.Wall Street Journaland other investigations have found thatGoogle alters its search resultsin ways thatbenefit leftists. So does YouTubes currentcriteriafor hiding information.

Reddit banned links to the declaration in its Covid forums, and Facebook temporarily suspended the declarations page without an explanation, the lawsuit also says.

In May 2021, Twitter suspended Kulldorffs account for a month after he posted that masks endow vulnerable individuals with a false sense of security, because they actually do not work well to protect against viral infection. In 2022, the Twitter Files showed that Twitter employees had also kept Kulldorffs ideas from spreading on an equal basis to other posts on their platform. Twitter slapped his expert opinion with a misleading label and banned likes and replies.

Anthony Fauci, when he was director of NIAID, he sat on the biggest pile of infectious disease money in the world. NIH, [controlled during lockdowns by] Francis Collins, controls funds for not only infectious diseases but all of public health, Kulldorff noted. So when they take a very strong stand on a specific policy its very concerning, because that means that scientists are not going to dare to speak up because they are afraid of losing research funds, they are afraid of losing their livelihood. I think that was a huge problem in the pandemic.

Kulldorff noted that silencing people increases their distrust and anger, while allowing them to speak and engaging with their ideas is the most effective way to change minds in the long run. Censorship also endangers peoples lives by shutting down innovation and creativity, which requires an openness to new and contrarian ideas.

If we had more debate, schools would have opened earlier, for example. This is very important for children, Kulldorff said. At this point I think everybody realizes that was a big mistake and people like Fauci, who were arguing for school closures in 2020, they are now claiming they wanted schools to be open. Silencing people, censoring people, slandering people did create worse outcomes in this pandemic than we would otherwise have had.

The highly cited epidemiologist thinks scientific funding needs to be decentralized to increase the pro-science flow of ideas and reduce the cartelization of research that allows federal funding to induce self-censorship. That might mean dividing the NIH and NIAID into several regional institutions, Kulldorff suggested. Some of the best research on Covid questions came from advanced countries not dependent on U.S. research funds like Denmark, Sweden, Qatar, and Israel, he noted.

It is a problem that the people who are responsible for what I think is the biggest public health fiasco in history, they are still largely in place, Kulldorff said. Sometimes an individual might step out, but these structures and those communities who were responsible for this, they are still in charge in terms of public health and in terms of the scientific community. That has to change.

Link:

Doctor In Supreme Court Censorship Case: 'We Had To Speak Up' - The Federalist

Warning: This article contains a book excerpt with graphic sexual descriptions.

In response to parents objecting to the state-sponsored sexualization of our children in public schools, the American Library Association (ALA) is hosting Banned Books Week from Oct. 1-7. The event is likely meant to distract Americans from an unfortunate reality: The taxpayer-funded ALA is trying to place pornographic books in the hands of children, while it tries to ban books and story hours with patriotic themes.

Few are soon to forgetstory hourwith Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. On Sept. 12, during theSenate Judiciary Committee hearing titled Book Bans: Examining How Censorship Limits Liberty and Literature, Kennedy read excerpts from books currently in middle-school libraries across the country. From the pornographic book containing graphic pictures,Gender Queer, the 71-year-old read, I cant wait to have your c-ck in my mouth. Im going to give you the blowjob of your life. Then I want you inside of me.

Kennedys display made an incisive point: Books likeGender QueerandAll Boys Arent Bluemeet the legal definition of pornography, and they do not belong in K-12 public school libraries. Even Maia Kobabe, the author ofGender Queer, agrees. Shesaid, I dont recommend this book for kids.

Others feel that 11-year-olds in middle school need access to these books to feel seen. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for example,stated,Every student deserves access to books that reflect their experiences and help them better understand who they are. It is unclear the children to whom the senator is referring, but if these passages reflect their experiences, they are victims in need of serious help.

Other leftist activistscriticizedthe senator for reading the explicit books. A witness in favor of the books argued that the passages weredisturbing especially coming out of your mouth.To some, the issue is that an adult would dare read this pornographic material publicly, not that it is available to our children in their public schools.

Similarly, in Fairfax County, Virginia, Harry Jackson, a Republican-endorsed school board candidate, sent a mailer to constituents in his district that contained graphic pictures and passages from books currently available in public middle schools in Fairfax County. A local news channel, NBC4,reportedon the mailer.

Rather than addressing the true problem, that these books are available to young children, thestory anglewas to focus on the appropriateness of the candidates decision to alert voters of these explicit materials with a mailer. Journalists reached out to his opponent, the incumbent and Democrat-endorsed Melanie Meren, who offered a nonsensical politicians quote about respectful and thoughtful conversations. NBC4 failed to report that Meren voted to keep books likeGender Queerin the districts middle-school libraries and that she ignored Jacksons public debate challenge, thereby negating her interest in thoughtful conversations. Leftist activists and journalists clearly favor tribalism over logic and objective reporting.

Emily Drabinski, the self-proclaimed Marxist president of the ALA, illogically complains about the injustice of banning explicit materials, while simultaneously advocating for banning story hours on faith, family, and patriotism. In response to Kirk Cameron organizing nationwide libraryevents, Drabinski provided tips in a presentation for librarians about how tothwartthese story hours. She advised the librarians,You can limit access to meeting rooms to persons eligible to hold a library card in your community. You could make a priority for library-sponsored programs.

While using theALAs $250 million budget torestrict conservatives free speech, Drabinski also utilizes her resources to promote pornography in middle school libraries. Librarians should be focused on helping hesitant readers, particularly considering learning loss from prolonged school closures, but it would seem the ALA leadership prioritizes other endeavors. Not only does Drabinski supportbooks likeGender Queerin public libraries for children, she hosts conferences to brainstorm how to get more of those types of books in the hands of more children. The ALAsJune 2023 conference included a sessiontitled, Beyond the Middle School Rainbow: Intersectionality in LGBTQIA+ Middle Grade Books.

On Sept. 2, despite the multi-statewithdrawalfrom the ALA, Drabinski doubled down on her position, and claimed that American libraries should be places for socialist activism. At a conference panel titled,Freedom To Learn: Black and Asian American Solidarity Against Attacks on Antiracist Education, after being publicly referred to as comrade, Drabinskisaid,I think your point that public education needs to be a site of socialist organizing, I think libraries really do too. I think we need to be on the agenda for socialist organizing.

Likely to that end, the ALA is currently hosting its fraudulent Banned Books Week. In support of its misleading event, the websitereads: When we ban books, were closing off readers to people, places, and perspectives. But when we stand up for stories, we unleash the power that lies inside every book. We liberate the array of voices that need to be heard and the scenes that need to be seen. Let freedom read!

Thewebsitefurther addresses the issue of political polarization. It makes me wonder: Will they include Kirk Camerons and other conservatives books in their displays? Of course they wont.

There are two grand ironies in the explicit materials in schools debate. The left is trying to gaslight us into believing we are only imagining that pornography is in our childrens public school libraries that only white supremacists and homophobes take issue with any book. When we bring proof and alert others to the pornographic materials, like Kennedy and Jackson did, these leftist activists suggest we are inappropriate and disturbing. Secondly, the ALA hosts a Banned Books Week to celebrate so-called free expression in material that is extremely inappropriate and technically illegal for children, while concurrently trying to ban books and story hours for children on themes of patriotism, faith, and family.

The ALA is clearly not thenonpartisan, nonprofit organizationitdescribesitself to be. Partisan, socialist, pornography-peddling associations should not be funded with taxpayer dollars.

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, and a member of the Independent Womens Network.

See the original post:

Porn In School Libraries Is The Real Problem, Not 'Banned Books' - The Federalist

Congress averted a government shutdown this weekend, agreeing to 45 days of funding to give members time to pass appropriations bills for the full year. Incredibly, Democrats seemed prepared to shut down the government over their desire for increases in Ukraine war funding. Republicans, by contrast, bucked Senate leader Mitch McConnell to keep the government open without such funding.

While shutdown battles have become common, this one had absurd moments. Democrats tried to delay votes with everything from magic minutes, which allow party leaders to speak at length, to Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulling a fire alarm in the middle of a vote, forcing the evacuation of a House office building.

With hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters facing excessive sentences, which Department of Justice prosecutors say is because they attempted to delay or obstruct an official congressional proceeding, some Americans began demanding the elected member of Congress be held to the same excruciating standard. Bowman, a former school principal, later claimed he didnt understand how fire alarms work.

Even after the House passed the bill, Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado further delayed the eventual passage by placing a hold on the bill. The procedural delays were partly a result of efforts to force a shutdown that could be blamed on Republicans. Conventional wisdom in Washington is that Republicans get blamed for government shutdowns regardless of who is responsible.

However, Democrats delays were also about a demand for additional Ukraine funding. Some Republicans, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also want U.S. taxpayers to finance even more of the war against Russia, which has descended into an expensive quagmire.

Despite nine months of bloody fighting, less than 500 square miles of territory have changed hands since the start of the year. A prolonged stalemate could weaken Western support for Ukraine, reported The New York Times last week.

Thats exactly what has happened. Congress has approved around $113 billion in four rounds of funding. Many polls show significantly weakening support for additional funding. In fact, some 55 percent of Americans oppose additional funding, according to a poll from the left-wing media outlet CNN. That percentage goes up to 71 percent for Republicans. Additional funding for Ukraine is supported by 62 percent of Democrats, according to the poll. Incidentally, CNN joined other corporate media in suppressing discussion of these numbers during the weekend shutdown battle, which hinged on Ukraine funding.

The press never even mentions that Ukraine war funding has become incredibly unpopular with actual Republican voters and an increasing number of independents, one social media analyst noted. Its always framed on every network like some fringe position when its actually the majority of Americans.

Democrats are enthusiastically adopting the Bush-era foreign policy of supporting lengthy U.S.-led wars with a tenuous or even deleterious effect on national security. These wars tend to have very little strategy other than avoiding quick resolution. Such long wars enable years or even decades of financing of the defense industry, which some Ukraine war supporters point to as a benefit for Americans. Democrats are even adopting the Bush-era claim that such wars need to be fought to advance democracy.

On Friday night, the lack of additional funding for Ukraine caused Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., to object to Sen. Ron Johnsons, R-Wis., request on the Senate floor to pass a clean two-week funding extension.

The Dems are about to shut down the government over Ukraine. I actually cant believe it, but here we are, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, said in a social media post.

The Senate then pushed a bill that would give an additional $6 billion to fund the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy dismissed it out of hand and said the House would propose something instead. A few days prior, House Republicans were able to strip $300 million in Ukraine funding from a bill that was being debated.

Back in the Senate, McConnell failed to get fellow Republicans to sign onto his plan to force Ukraine funding instead of allowing House Republicans to work on a funding bill without it. Punchbowls John Bresnahan and Andrew Desiderio had perhaps the most intriguing reporting of the weekend with this vignette:

Senate sources said it was the first time they could remember that Republican senators didnt seem to fear repercussions for disagreeing with McConnell, particularly on a prominent issue on which hed staked out a clear position. It was unclear whether senators overruled McConnell because his mental and physical weakness has left him vulnerable or simply because they recognize how strongly Republican voters feel about funding an expensive war without a clear strategy for success.

House Democrats dug in, passing around a one-page sheet lambasting McCarthy for his continuing resolution, almost all of which focused on Democrats desire for U.S. taxpayers to finance the Ukraine war.

The Senate prepared to hotline, or fast track, their vote on the House bill that did not include war funding. Thats when Bennett held it up over the Ukraine issue.

The pressure for funding could not have been more intense. Senior administration officials pressured McConnell, saying that Ukraine could not be sustained without funding in this weekends bill.

Its rumored that Pentagon officials are on their way over to the Capitol to lobby for Schumer-McConnell. The Military Industrial Complex doesnt like to lose, wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on Saturday.

Russia-collusion hoaxer Michael McFaul trotted out the same type of argument that has been used to bully Americans to stay in drawn-out wars for decades. If the US pulls back on our support from Ukraine now, we radically diminish our credibility to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, he said.

The Ukraine war enthusiasts only allowed the stopgap funding measure to proceed on the grounds theyd soon get a vote on whether to send another major aid package to Ukraine.

We will not stop fighting for more economic and security assistance for Ukraine, Schumer said.

We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted. I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment, President Biden said in his announcement on the funding measure. He said hed made a deal with McCarthy to vote on additional funding.

House Democrats said, When the House returns, we expect Speaker McCarthy to advance a bill to the House Floor for an up-or-down vote that supports Ukraine, consistent with his commitment to making sure that Vladimir Putin, Russia and authoritarianism are defeated. We must stand with the Ukrainian people until victory is won.

Nearly every Democrat and a fair number of Republicans want to continue funding the Ukraine war, despite the results of previous rounds of funding. Theyll likely succeed, but the vote will be harder.

Conservative Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will be on guard. When I said Id do everything I could to stop the US government from being held hostage to Ukraine, I meant it. We cannot continue to put the needs of other countries above our own. We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy. Im grateful to all Members of Congress who stood with me, but the battle to fund our government isnt over yet the forever-war crowd will return, he wrote.

Democrats campaign strategy of emphasizing Ukraine war funding at a time of economic distress for many Americans will be interesting to watch.

Read more:

Despite Growing Opposition And Serious Problems At Home ... - The Federalist

A federal judge rejected former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clarks efforts to remove the Fulton County, Georgia, criminal indictment to federal court. The Friday decision by Obama appointee Steve Jones constituted an appalling disregard for the executive branch of government, which, unless overturned on appeal, will threaten the confidentiality and candor essential to the executive branch.

Clark had attempted to remove to federal court the sprawlinggrand jury indictment that get-Trump Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis had obtained against him and 18 co-defendants, which included the former president. Clark sought removal based on 1442(a)(1) of the United States code, which provides that a criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court against an officer of the United States or any federal agency may remove the case to a federal court if the prosecution is for or relating to any act under color of such office

Judge Jones rejected Clarks efforts to remove the case, concluding the former assistant attorney general failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that his drafting of a letter on Dec. 28, 2020, addressed to the Georgia governor, the Georgia speaker of the House, and the Georgia president pro tempore of the Senate, was causally connected to his job as the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the DOJ.

That draft letter, which Clark presented to his DOJ superiors Jeff Rosen, then-acting attorney general, and Richard Donoghue, then-acting deputy attorney general noted the DOJ was investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States and stated that we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.

Rosen and Donoghue both refused to sign the letter, disagreeing with Clarks assessment and the propriety of the Justice Department involving itself in the Georgia election battle. Then-President Trump later met with Rosen, Donoghue, and Clark in the Oval Office, as well as six other senior administration lawyers from DOJ and the White House, where the group discussed Clarks draft letter for more than three house, after which Trump decided against sending the letter.

For drafting the letter and pushing Rosen and Donoghue to send it to Georgia officials, the Fulton County prosecutors charged Clark with criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings. But while Clark wrote the Dec. 28, 2020, letter in his DOJ office, using DOJ equipment, presented it to his superiors from his DOJ email account, and met with and argued in favor of the letter in a meeting that included the then-president of the United States, Judge Jones concluded the charges were not causally connected to his job as the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division because there was no evidence that the President directed Clark to work on election-related matters generally or to write the December 28 letter to the Georgia State Officials on their election procedures.

In essence, then, the federal court refused Clark a federal forum to present his immunity and other defenses unless he disclosed what would have been privileged communications with the president.

Judge Jones also rejected Clarks removal based on Rosen and Donoghues view that sending the draft letter exceeded both Clark and the DOJs authority. Under this reasoning, then, all federal employees, even Senate-confirmed officials, could face prosecution in a state court for recommending a course of conduct that others believe to be outside their authority. Such a standard could wreak havoc on the frank deliberations necessary in the executive branch. If the supremacy clause means anything, this holding must not stand.

The 11th Circuit will decide these questions next, and the appeal by Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff for Trump, will set the stage. Meadows likewise appealed from Judge Jones decision denying removal of the Fulton County criminal case. And while Meadows case differs factually from Clarks, given their different roles in the Trump administration, the former chief of staffs briefing reveals a fatal flaw in Judge Jones analysis.

In both Meadows and Clarks cases, Judge Jones asked whether they were being charged for an act causally connected to their federal office. But as Meadows detailed in his opening brief to the 11th Circuit, Congress in 2011 amended 1442(a), replacing the for any act standard for removal with for or relating to any act, taken as a federal officer. This change, as Meadows argues, displaced the causal connection test courts had previously applied and broadened federal officer removal to actions, not just causally connected, but alternatively connected or associated, with acts under color of federal office.

Given that then-President Trump spent some three hours discussing Clarks letter with top DOJ officials, to say that Clarks drafting of the letter was not relating to or associated with his federal office is seemingly nonsensical. But so too is this entire circus designed by a county prosecutor in a deep-blue county which was precisely why Congress created removal jurisdiction for federal officials.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalists senior legal correspondent. Margots work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Privethe 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. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishmentsher dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Link:

Obama Judge Rejects Removal Of Fulton County Case To Federal ... - The Federalist

ProPublica continues its non-stop smear campaign against Justice Clarence Thomas, this time because he delivered remarks to some attendees at a non-profit seminar event in 2018. Its their trademark tactic: ProPublica strings together perfectly ethical conduct, adds lots of innuendo, and then falsely claims Justice Clarence Thomas acted unethically.

Its a lie. Justice Thomas acted ethically and appropriately, and consistently with how other justices have conducted themselves.

Contrary to ProPublicas claims, this Koch Network event was not a fundraiser and Justice Thomas was not involved in any way with raising funds for this group. Yes, donors attended, but donors often attend events at which justices speak, such as those through the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, or even at university commencements.

ProPublica cites unnamed organization staffers (theyre always unnamed and therefore unreliable, as I proved in another story) claiming they wanted to leverage Thomass appearance to raise more money from donors: The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving. The report continues, That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court.

ProPublica smears Thomas by suggesting he had some role in any fundraising effort. He did not. Moreover, its not unusual for any organization or school to highlight leaders who have attended events to burnish the organization or schools reputation and, yes, raise funds. Contrary to ProPublicas warped narrative, this does not present any reason for a justice to recuse from a case regarding that entity.

A recent AP story revealed that when Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed to attend a private luncheon at Clemson University, officials made sure to invite $1 million-plus donors. Donors got access to and had photos taken with Justice Sotomayor. Clemson University officials wanted to use Sotomayors visit to drive awareness and ultimately generate resources, i.e., fundraising.

The same story reveals that when the University of Colorado hosted Justice Elena Kagan, the school sought to reward donors by having a larger donor to staff ratio for a dinner with the justice.

There is nothing wrong with a school or organization inviting donors to attend speeches or luncheons with visiting dignitaries. It happens every day, and its foolish to demand otherwise.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a school or organization highlighting that a president, justice, or other leader has given remarks (including commencements) at the school to raise the profile of the school and, yes, to raise funds. But the president or justice who speaks has nothing at all to do with these fundraising efforts.

ProPublica does not mention any of this because it seeks to gaslight the American people into thinking there is something wrong with Justice Thomass conduct in speaking at this event when in fact there is nothing irregular or wrong. He gives speeches or talks at a variety of events, as other justices do.

The American University highlights on its website Justice Ketanji Brown Jacksons commencement speech she gave earlier this year at the school. Does American do this to help drive awareness of a Supreme Court justice speaking at the school, with the goal that it will also help increase donations or attendance at the school, which are both financial motivations? Of course it does. Does this make Justice Jackson a part of the fundraising effort? Of course not.

Similarly, if American University appears before the Supreme Court in the future, say on an affirmative-action case, will Justice Jackson have to recuse because she gave a commencement address there? Again, of course not.

The same is true about Justice Sotomayor and Clemson University as well as Justice Kagan and the University of Colorado and these are just two of the many schools or groups at which these justices have appeared. All of this goes to illustrate how nonsensical these attacks and demands for recusal are on Justice Thomas.

Justice Thomas has spoken to attendees at only one Koch Network event in more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. (He briefly dropped by another in 2008.)Its absurd for anyone to suggest that Thomas should recuse from any case in which this group is involved.

Yet that is exactly what ProPublica and the left are urging with respect to the upcoming Loper Bright case, which concerns how much deference is due to a federal agencys discretion in imposing regulations. Koch-affiliated lawyers are representing the party challenging the agencys rule.

For another comparison, lets look at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs history of speaking at events in which the host appeared before the Supreme Court. In 2004, Ginsburg gave remarks at an event cosponsored by the National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense and Education Fund and never recused from the many Supreme Court cases in which NOW filed briefs. ProPublica mentions this fact but does not mention in its article that Justice Ginsburg served on this leftwing advocacy organizations board in the 1970s and on its advisory committee for judicial education.

Nor does ProPublica mention that Ginsburg was so close to this group that the event at which she delivered her remarks in 2004 was named after her the 4th Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

ProPublica also failed to mention that Ginsburg donated a signed copy of the United States v. Virginia decision (which struck down single-sex education at VMI as unconstitutional) for an auction to raise money for the NOW PAC. She never recused from any case where the NOW Legal Defense Fund (LDF) had filed a brief. And of course, she often ruled exactly as NOW LDF advocated.

Ginsburgs relationship was leaps and bounds closer to NOW than Thomass essentially nonexistent connection to the Koch Network, but the left never demanded Ginsburg recuse from NOW cases. This shows the lefts hypocrisy in demanding that Justice Thomas recuse from the Loper case.

Justice Ginsburg also helped establish the ACLUs Womens Rights Project in 1972, serving as its general counsel and, later on their board of directors for years. As a judge, Ginsburg sent a complimentary note to an ACLU lawyer about her advocacy on an issue relating to sex discrimination in insurance. I am unaware of Ginsburg ever recusing from any Supreme Court cases where the ACLU filed a brief.

Moreover, imagine if Justice Thomas had sent a note to a Koch attorney urging the lawyer to continue advocating on an issue that could come before the court. Heads would have exploded. But from the left, there are only crickets aboutJustice Ginsburgs non-recusal.

ProPublica fails to mention that Ginsburg attended an event at the partisan Womans National Democratic Club in 2010 and accepted an award and did not disclose it.I am unaware of her ever recusing from a case where the Democrat Party filed a brief.Nina Totenberg, Ginsburgs close friend and NPRs Supreme Court reporter, emceed the event but did not disclose this inappropriate and partisan event until after Ginsburg passed.

The left also complains that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he gave these remarks.But justices are not required to disclose every group with which they meet.Recently, Justice Thomas met at the court with 60 students from the Bronx. He is not required to disclose this meeting, but I look forward to ProPublicas lame expos when Justice Thomas does not list this meeting on his form next year.

The left and the so-called ethics watchdogs never had any serious problem with Justice Ginsburgs conduct with these groups nor her non-recusal when they were involved in cases. Why are they inventing a new recusal standard for Justice Thomas that didnt apply to other justices, and particularly to Ginsburg?Because the left wants to bully Justice Thomas into recusing and shrink the number of justices sitting on key cases that the left is worried about losing cases like Loper.

But it wont work. Justice Thomas has never bowed to these sorts of baseless and vicious attacks, and he wont start now.

Mark Paoletta served as a lawyer in the George H.W. Bush White House Counsels office and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a senior fellow at Center for Renewing America, and partner at Schaerr Jaffe.

Read the original:

ProPublica Smear Of Justice Thomas Reveals A Partisan Double ... - The Federalist