Daily Archives: January 23, 2024

With every woman, for every child.

This was the slogan for the 51st annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday where thousands of pro-life Americans gathered despite snow and frigid temperatures. The annual march marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years.

Americans of all ages and faith backgrounds gathered at the rally before the march began with a view of the Capitol building in front and a view of the Washington Monument behind them. Young high school students built a snowman while others of all ages gathered in joy to witness and celebrate the beauty of life.

While thousands gathered to hear a variety of speeches, a video played on repeat, speaking to how the death and darkness of abortion will only end with an approach of hope and love. Those gathered were invited to be the light in the darkness, and a voice for unborn babies who have no voice.

The video also referenced, as did many speakers at the rally, that the overturn of Roe v. Wade was a big step but that much is still to be done, promising to not stop marching until abortion is unthinkable.

We are not done. We will keep marching every January at the national level, as well as in our states, until our nations laws reflect the basic truth that all human life is created equal and is worthy of protection, said March for Life President Jeanne Mancini.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., gave the opening remarks. He spoke about how the birth certificate of America, the Declaration of Independence, bluntly references the fact that our rights do not come from the government but from our Creator.

Johnson also noted that his existence was the result of an unplanned pregnancy. His parents were teenagers when they found out they were pregnant. Johnson showed gratitude to his parents for choosing life, expressing just how blessed he was for that decision.

Jean Marie Davis, executive director of Branches Pregnancy Resource Center, and single mom and author Aisha Taylor, both spoke at the rally about how pregnancy resource centers saved the lives of their children. When they needed help and had nowhere to go, they reached out to one of these centers and were given a similar message: How can we help you and support you?

Both women noted that those conversations helped them to have the courage to keep their baby and not get an abortion. Now they could never consider life without their unplanned children.

There are over 2,700 pregnancy centers around the country. While the Biden administration desires to decrease their funding, these centers save lives every year and support mothers with over $300 million of donations in diapers, clothing, baby formula, and other necessities. Keeping these facilities open and available while championing the good they do was a clear message from the rally.

University of Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh, who just clinched the national college football championship a few weeks ago, also shared some words at the rally. This is a great day for a march. It is football weather, Harbaugh said, before noting what a great witness to the sanctity of life is being set by the thousands gathered.

[READ: UM Coach Jim Harbaugh Champions Right To Life Following Football Championship]

Once the walk to the Capitol building and Supreme Court began, thousands of pro-lifers filled the streets. Along the route, you could visibly see groups wearing color-coordinated scarves and hats. There were groups from Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Indiana, New York and countless others who had traveled across the country to march.

Along the way, you could hear some groups praying the rosary while others sang songs and some led chants in support of the pro-life cause. Not long into the route, a bright yellow sign caught my eye: Caution genocide content ahead.

Soon there was a massive television in sight showing pictures of aborted babies. There was even a recording of a baby crying during an abortion. As a father of two, this was the most jarring part of the event. It was explicit and real. But it was true.

The reason why so many made their way through the bitter cold and snow to walk the streets of the nations capital was encapsulated by the chants, songs, and images of the day. Those who marched love life. They love families and they love babies.

Speaking to some participants on this cold day their messages were similar. We come to give voice to the voiceless. We march out of love for life. Protecting their right to life is why we march.

May the goal of the March for Life come true: lets make abortion unthinkable because every life has infinite value.

Thomas Griffin teaches in the Religion Department at a Catholic high school and lives on Long Island with his wife and son. He has a masters degree in theology and is currently a masters candidate in philosophy. Follow his latest content at EmptyTombProject.org

Read the rest here:

Thousands Attend March For Life Hoping To Make Abortion 'Unthinkable' - The Federalist

The corporate media are just now discovering what I learned in 2015, that theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA), under the direction of President Barack Obama, hires air traffic controllers (ATC) on the basis of race.Of course, President Biden, as part of his commitment to equity, took it further.His FAA identified certain disabilities as deserving of special emphasis in recruitment and hiring, including epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, [and] psychiatric disability.

How in the world did it come to this?

Twenty-nine years ago this week, I argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that the federal governments policy of using race to award contracts was unconstitutional.My client, Randy Pech of Colorado Springs, was a college dropout who had parlayed his fathers retirement monies no bank would loan him funds into a small business building guardrails along federal highways.Although his was the lowest bid on a national forest job in southwestern Colorado and he had a reputation for doing excellent work on a timely basis, he was denied the subcontract because a federal agency awarded the prime contractor a $10,000 bonus to give the job to a minority-owned business.

Forty-one years after the Supreme Court ruled regarding public schools in Washington, D.C., it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government than on the states, and the solicitor general argued just that:Congress owed no duty to my client to adhere to the Constitutions equal protection guarantee.

The court disagreed. In fact, I was there that spring when Justice OConnor read her5-4 ruling, which held:[A]ny person, of whatever race, has the right to demand that any governmental actor subject to the Constitution justify any racial classification subjecting that person to unequal treatment

The holding was a bombshell.It led the network news that night and appeared on the front page, above the fold, of every newspaper in the country.Race-based decision-making, affirmative action, or reverse discrimination was doomed, declared all the legal experts.

Today, with federal agencies like the FAA hiring on the basis of race, Ivy League universities appointing presidents due to the color of their skin, corporations all but declaring that white males (like my client who was once called an angry white man) need not apply, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) everywhere run amok, what happened to the 1995 ruling my client won inAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea?

Because, in Justice OConnors words, the court had alter[ed] the playing field, my client was sent back to Colorado federal district court for it to rule anew, given the courts holding that the Constitutions equal protection guarantee applied to the federal government.

In 2000, the courtunanimously swatted asidean attempt by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to kill the case; thus, in 2001, I was back before the court.On their way out the door, Clinton administration lawyers argued the case was ripe for a ruling, but President George W. Bushs lawyers argued it was moot.In the wake of the attack of 9/11,the court agreed. During oral argument, I vowed to return to enforce the courts 1995 holding.

In 2003, I did return on behalf of a Denver small businessman, but by then Justice OConnor had lost her way.On the recommendation of retired generals and admirals, corporate CEOs, and university poohbahs,she allowed colleges to grant admission based on race for no more than 25 more years.Not surprisingly, over a vigorousdissentby Justice Scalia, joined by the chief justice, my clients petition forwritofcertiorariwas rejected.

Meanwhile, in the wake of my 1995 victory, Congress considered whether to end itspolicyof doing business based on race.After two years, with bipartisan support, Congress voted to leave the issue up to the courts.Then, in 2015, after I sued the FAA for hiring air traffic controllers based on race, Congress declined to end the program, which continues even today.In 2021, albeit with not a single Republican vote, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act, which granted Covid relief to restauranteurs, but only those of certain enumerated races.Fortunately, that misadventure ended after federal court rulings, including bythe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that it was unconstitutional, citingAdarand.

Meanwhile, the American people expressed their disdain for racial quotas.In 1996, California passed theCalifornia Civil Rights Initiative(Proposition 209), modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended race-based hiring, contracting, and admissions in the Golden State.In 1998,Washington state did the same.In both instances, voters rejected the urgings of their states political, business, and media elites, which were brought to them via slick, expensive advertising campaigns.In fact, in 2020,Californians once again voted No to government race-based decision-making.

Fortunately, OConnors disastrous 2003 ruling inGrutterdid not live out its 25-year sentence. Last year, Chief Justice Robertsall but overruledGrutterby ending race-based admissions by colleges and universities.That good news was long overdue. However, that was not all the chief justice got right.

In 2007, he declared, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.Time to do so is well past due, but it will not occur with President Biden and the current Congress.

Given illegal immigration, inflation, and imminent global war, the American people have many reasons to vote the bums out.Add racial politics, racial divisiveness, and the radical end to Americas meritocracy, and the path forward becomes clear.

A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies.Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Courts ruling inAdarandand compel the federal government to comply with the Constitutions equal protection guarantee.To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the promissory note set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Mr. Pendley, a Wyoming attorney and Colorado-based, public-interest lawyer for three decades, served in the Reagan administration and led the Bureau of Land Management for President Donald Trump.

Follow this link:

Putting An End To Race-Based Hiring Is 30 Years Past Due - The Federalist

Eurocrats are preparing an extensive overhaul of the EUs existing internal rules, aiming to modify its entire decision-making structure by 2030. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen presented the comprehensive reforms as the technical process necessary to accommodate a European Union with at least 30 member states. Reform, of course, is simply Brussels-speak for more centralized federal control, removing individual member states right to veto, and imposing EU taxes.

The political intertwining of enlargement and reform is not incidental. It is designed to incentivize countries supportive of enlargement but hesitant about reformnotably the Nordics and Balticsto actively endorse EU reforms. Ultimately, the EU Commission will deliberately present these reforms as a moral issue: rejecting centralization equals rejecting enlargementwhich amounts to nothing less than betraying Ukraine and siding with Russia.

The ambitious plan was discussed by von der Leyen while she was addressing the European Parliaments plenary on Wednesday, January 17th. She promised to deliver a comprehensive blueprint for the EU reforms next month, ahead of the next European Council Summit on February 1st. Modernization, she claims, is deemed necessary for the impending EU enlargement to include Ukraine, Moldova, and several Balkan countries. Naturally, von der Leyen made no mention of how it will centralize federal power.

Several member states have been eagerly awaiting the Commissions concrete proposals to kickstart the more substantive discussion on the matter.

Among others, Germany, France, and Portugal have been the most vocal supporters of reforming the EUs inner dynamics, even if that would ultimately mean less power for the individual member states.

Von der Leyen noted that the Commission formulated its proposals for building the future EU while heavily relying on the input it received from the European Parliament. This House has already put forward bold ideas for a reform of our treaties, she said, without revealing any further details.

Recently the European Parliament adopted several reports, endorsing a wide range of proposals that would explicitly strengthen Brussels while weakening member states sovereignty. These include restricting the Councils legislative powers, scrapping the rotating presidency and members veto power, creating an EU citizenship, and introducing European referenda, as well as transferring ten concrete policy areas (including climate, public health, border control, and defense policy) to Brussels auspices.

Reacting to one of the most outrageous reports submitted by the notoriously federalist Verhofstadt Group, Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski described the proposals as the creation of a European superstate on the ruins of nation-states:

The public is not supposed to notice that a putsch is about to take place, that the European Union as a community of sovereign states is being abolished and a superstate is being created without any consent of the people, where a political oligarchy will rule unaccountably and escape the democratic control of citizens.

Insiders suggest that the Commissions forthcoming proposals are likely to include a step-by-step strategic roadmap that would intricately link each reform measure with a corresponding enlargement step. The overarching goal is to complete these reforms by the time Ukraine and the others officially join the EU, for which no official deadline has been set by mainstream Eurocrats who would like to see it happen by 2030.

Adding a layer of complexity to the reform agenda, officials in Paris and Berlin have underscored the necessity of addressing the financing of Union programs and the repayment of EU debt in the future as well. The economic disparity between current EU members and the much poorer newcomersparticularly Ukraine with an estimated GDP per capita of 4,100poses a significant challenge.

Thats why the Commissions proposals will likely include a set of measures to acquire its own resources, primarily in the form of EU taxes. Critics have warned these could easily lead to the fragmentation of the European economy, as well as accelerated centralization and further hijacked competencies.

Put simply, the proposed EU reforms can only go in the direction of deeper integration and the federalist end goal. Europeans, however, will have one more say on the matter in June: let us hope the Eurocrats will take notice.

See the original post here:

Ever-Closer Union: Brussels Plots Federalist Reforms The European Conservative - The European Conservative

Nearly four years after the damning evidence of Biden family corruption on Hunter Bidens laptop was disclosed in 2020, President Joe Bidens Department of Justice admitted in a court filing on Tuesday that the Mac and its contents are real.

If youve been following this story since it broke in October 2020, you know there was never any true reason to doubt The New York Posts reporting or the word of the Delaware computer repair shop owner that the abandoned Mac belonged to Hunter. Yet truth was no defense. The Post was quickly banned from social media for spreading disinformation a decision based on actual disinformation and dozens of U.S. intelligence officials rushed to back the censorship. So did Joe Biden.

The DOJs confirmation the laptops contents came from Hunter arrives years after complicit media outlets quietly admitted the truth about the computer in 2022, and even longer after conservative media verified the laptops authenticity ahead of 2020 election day.

The DOJs acknowledgment that Hunters laptop was left at a computer store and contained duplicative information investigators had already obtained from Apple further vindicates the IRS whistleblowers, who were also relentlessly smeared for speaking up.

In 2020, any mention of the evidence IRS whistleblower or otherwise that the then-presidential candidate Biden and his family were involved in an international influence-peddling scheme was nuked by Big Tech, shunned by corporate media, and skewered by Democrats. Its still treated as false by many top media and Democrat figures.

President Joe Biden, one of the biggest laptop deniers, repeatedly insisted from the 2020 debate stage and campaign trail that the laptop was a Russian plant meant to harm his election chances. Biden, Hunter, Big Tech companies, the FBI, and the IRS knew this was a lie, but continued to tout it well into the Democrats first term.

Even when current intelligence leaders confirmed there wasnever any evidencethat the Hunter laptop wasnt legitimate, Biden justified spreading this conspiracy theory with a lettersigned by dozens of former intelligence heads. In it, they dubbed the laptop story Russian disinformation.Reporting later revealed it was Bidens then-campaign adviser and now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken who orchestrated the letter and the CIA that solicited signatures for it.

Evidence of the Bidens deep familial corruption had thepotential to changeAmericans votes in the 2020 election. That is why all of Democrats forces in technology, the propaganda press, and the bureaucracy banded together to subdue it.

Over and over and over, those same forces were proven not just wrong, but corrupt co-conspirators in the scheme to rig the 2020 election in Bidens favor.

When Hunters laptop surfaced and former Biden business partner Tony Bobulinskiclaimedmere weeks before the 2020 election he met with Joe as part of Biden family influence-peddling, Biden denied everything. He denied Hunter ever made money on China and that he was ever involved in the pay-to-play scheme.

To this day, Biden claims the hundredsofemails,texts, voicemails,bank records,receipts,White House visitor logs,photos, andsworn witness testimonies from Biden business associates proving his involvement in the family corruption business are a bunch of lies. He and everyone else who knew the laptop and its contents were legit faced zero consequences for their lying and treachery.

Election Day 2024 is fast approaching, and not one of the Americans who was lied to during the 2020 election will ever receive an apology from the FBI, corporate media, Big Tech, or the Bidens, because those institutions and people are not sorry. Getting away with dodging, deflecting, and burying what should have been the biggest corruption scandal story of the century was the plan all along.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

See the rest here:

4 Years Too Late, DOJ Admits Biden 'Laptop From Hell' Is Real - The Federalist

Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America President Dr. Kevin Roberts was invited to the World Economic Forums (WEF) annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to appear on a panel about What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration on Thursday.

In an op-ed penned ahead of the conference, Roberts wrote that he accepted the invitation to deliver the global elites a message. Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits, and natural rights of nations, families, and individuals to govern themselves, Roberts wrote, or We, the People will take matters into our own hands.

Roberts certainly delivered that message. When asked about who will likely join a new Trump administration, Roberts said it will be those who wish to destroy the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person.

The agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything thats ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum, and object to all of them wholesale, he added.

Roberts assertions are grounded in peoples real fear of the WEFs despotic policy proposals. So far during the 2024 conference, global elites have discussed ushering in a new world order,decrieddisinformation and misinformation, andlabeledfarming and fishing ecocide.

The discussion about a new Republican presidency was largely centered around fear of Trump that hell pull the United States out of NATO, yank aid to Ukraine, and put an end to supposed climate change policies. Panelist Gerard Baker, the editor-at-large for The Wall Street Journal, even fretted that a second Trump term could lead to a dictatorship.

Roberts called the fearmongering absurd and laughable, adding that its ironic to use the word dictatorship at Davos.

The Heritage Foundation president aptly pointed out that the WEF elites, the media, the academy, government agencies, international organizations, corporations, and the arts, dont actually care about preserving democracy. They fear Trump because a Trump presidency poses an existential threat to their power and Roberts did nothing to alleviate that fear.

Political elites tell the average people that the reality is X, when in fact reality is Y, Roberts said. Using immigration as an example, he called out the Davos crowd for telling people that open borders and even illegal immigration are OK. In reality, Roberts said, those things have robbed [people] of the American way of life.

Roberts also condemned elites for scaring people into believing so-called climate change is an existential threat to humanity and pointed out that Davos solutions to the supposed climate crisis are killing people.More than a billion people in the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years because of fossil fuels, Roberts explained. Yet climate alarmists are shutting down energy production to replace it with insufficient green energy.

China, Roberts added, is the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.

Roberts said to count on Trump taking on illegal immigration, eco-fascism, and Red China.

I think President Trump, if in fact he wins a second term, is going to be inspired by the wise words of Javier Milei, who said that he was in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions, concluded the president of Heritage. Thats what the average American and the average free person on planet Earth wants out of leaders.

Roberts appearance was vindicating for all the WEF victims who suffer from high energy prices, threats to freedom of movement and meat consumption, and increased encroachments on speech and other freedoms. Unfortunately, his remarks on Thursday wont change much.

In a statement following the event, Roberts expressed that he had little faith the WEF is capable of reform or adopting a noblesse oblige view of the world. Ultimately, Roberts wrote in his op-ed, the everyday citizens, workers, and families who shoulder the burdens of Davos-style global elitism, will have to work themselves to reclaim their individual rights and national sovereignty.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

More:

Heritage Foundation President Slams Davos Elites To Their Faces - The Federalist

Migrants without proper identification may apparently opt out of being photographed by TSA upon entry at Miami International Airport.

According to a sign posted on X by conservative podcaster Dave Rubin Thursday, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is allowing migrants to pass through entry points without having their picture taken.

U.S. airport Non-U.S. Citizen Document Validation Using CBP One Technology, the top of the sign reads.

CBP One refers to the mobile application launched in October 2020 that allows migrants to pre-plan their appointments with U.S. customs officials. Last fall, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records made public by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) revealed migrants were exploiting the app to gain entry. Accordingto the Washington Examiner, the app has also been abused by Central American cartels using virtual private networks (VPN) to smuggle people across the border.

The text of the sign posted by Rubin reads as follows:

TSA is partnering with CBP to test the use of CBP One at certain TSA checkpoints to validate adult non-U.S. citizen travel documentation when the traveler does not otherwise have an acceptable form of identification.

How it works: 1. Notify the TSA officer that you are a migrant. 2. The TSA officer will take a photo (optional). 3. If requested, provide your alien identification number or biographic information. 4. Follow officer instruction.

Photo capture is voluntary. You may decline to have your photo taken. If you do not wish to have your phot taken, please notify a TSA Officer. You must still provide your alien identification number or biographical information to the TSA Officer, even if you do not have your photo taken.

CBP One only verifies the information you previously provided to CBP and will not store your information. Because your information is verified through CBP One, TSA will also not store your information as part of this process.

Neither the TSA nor the CBP immediately responded to The Federalists inquiries Thursday morning.

According to a Recent Update on the CBP website, the agency updated the CBP One app in February last year to streamline the photo capture and scheduling process.

Starting April 29, 2023, the agency said, the CBP One application will remove the vulnerability requirement in preparation for the end of Title 42.

The Title 42 program, which empowered border officials to expel migrants quickly back to Mexico, expired on May 11. Conditions along the southern border have continued to deteriorate, with more than 300,000 illegal immigrant encounters in December, setting a newrecordfor the number of encounters in a single month.At least 1.7 million known gotaways have escaped apprehension since fiscal year 2021,accordingto the House Homeland Security Committee. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, 169 individuals caught were on the terrorist watchlist.

[RELATED: Bidens Border Crisis Is As Bad As Ever, His Admin Is Just Better At Hiding It]

Democrats in Washington, however, are holding additional funds for border security hostage to extract tens of billions in more aid to Ukraine. After a meeting this week with the president and congressional leaders at the White House, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer remained defiant.

The president himself said over and over again, that he is willing to move forward on border, Schumer told reporters. And so, we said we have to do both. There were a couple of people in the room who said lets do border first. We said we have to do both together.

On Capitol Hill, House Republicans are moving forward with their plans for impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with their second and final hearing Thursday. The hearing featured two mothers who blamed the loss of their children on the agencys failure to manage the southern border.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Mayorkas border policy is partially responsible for my daughters death, said Josephine Dunn, whose daughter died from fentanyl poisoning.

According to ABC News, fentanyl seizures are up 860 percent since 2019.

The rest is here:

TSA Sign Says Migrants Without ID May Opt Out Of Photos - The Federalist

Image CreditFDRLST / Canva

The nations ruling class holds deeply authoritarian opinions widely divorced from the rest of the American electorate, finds a survey out this week. It found nearly 60 percent of American elites think there is too much individual freedom in America. Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of registered voters have the exact opposite opinion, reporting the United States has too much top-down control, limiting liberty.

The study, titled Them Vs. U.S, defined the American elite as having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Such people account for about 1 percent of Americans. The study also examined a sub-sample of the 1 percent who graduated from Ivy League schools or other name-brand institutions such as Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.

The study from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity found ruling class opinions on climate policies were particularly harsh and despotic. More than two-thirds of the 1 percent support rationing vital energy and food sources in an attempt to control the globes weather. That number jumped to nearly 90 percent among the Ivy Leaguers. Around two-thirds of normal registered voters, however,opposerationing vital resources.

Limiting food and water consumption is a serious proposition to global leaders. For example, theC40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, an environmentalist organization of city leaders across the globe, has proposed annihilating meat and dairy consumption by 2030.

An astonishing 72% of the Elites including 81% of the Elites who graduated from the top universities favor banning gas cars, the study authors continued. And majorities of elites would ban gas stoves, non-essential air travel, SUVs, and private air conditioning.

Elites view of other elites is very different from regular registered voters view of elites. On the education front, Two-thirds (67%) [of the 1 percent] say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents decide. Only 38 percent of registered voters felt the same.

About six of ten elites have a favorable opinion of the so-called talking professionslawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and journalists, wrote the study authors. Additionally, In stark contrast to the rest of America, 70% of the Elites trust the government to do the right thing most of the time.

Unsurprisingly, about three-quarters of these cultural elites are Biden supporters. While only 20 percent of Americans say they are better off financially under Biden, nearly three-quarters of the elites say they are better off under Biden.

The study comes as global leaders meet in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forums annual meeting to discuss draconian climate policies and crackdowns on freedom of speech and therefore freedom of thought. So far at the conference, elites have discussed establishing a new world order,lobbiedfor censorship in the name of disinformation and misinformation, andlabeledfarming and fishing ecocide.

The WEF policy proposals and the results of this survey reveal what the Committee to Unleash Prosperity describes as a Grand Canyon-sized chasm between regular citizens and those who largely claim the expertise and power to rule over others with or without their consent.

These results confirm what people have long suspected, wrote the study authors: Today, there are two Americas. One is wealthier, more highly educated, and attended the best schools. They put much more trust in big government to do the right thing and, by their own admission, benefit from more expansive government policies. They have also been hurt far less by the high inflation of the Biden presidency than those who live from paycheck to paycheck and are in the lower and middle classes.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Link:

Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There's Too Much Freedom In America - The Federalist

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in two companion cases that could put an end to our totalitarian administrative state:Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of CommerceandLoper Bright v. Raimondo.

Heres your lawsplainer to understand the cases, the legal doctrine at issue Chevrondeference the oral argument, the punditry surrounding the cases, and the significance of what, on its surface, may appear to be narrow and nerdy issues of administrative law.

In bothRelentlessandLoper Bright, commercial fishing companies sued the U.S. Department of Commerce, challenging a federal administrative rule that requires businesses to pay the cost of government-mandated monitors who travel aboard their vessels during fishing expeditions.

To understand how this administrative rule came about, one must move through the bowels of the federal bureaucracy, beginning first with Congresssenactmentof the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

That act, first passed by Congress in 1976 to respond to the threat of overfishing and to promote conservation but amended multiple times since, regulates marine fisheries, which are defined as one or more stocks of fish. To protect against overfishing, the MSA established eight regional councils to manage the various fisheries. In turn, those councils establish fishery management plans, which specify conservation measures to prevent overfishing.

The MSA tasked the secretary of commerce with reviewing each fishery management plan and related regulations, but the secretary delegated those responsibilities to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The NMFS uses regional councils to draft the fishery management plans, which the NMFS must then approve, disapprove, or partially approve. The NMFS and regional councils then issue regulations to implement the approved plans.

(I did warn that you were about to enter the entrails of the alphabet soup of the administrative state.)

This backdrop brings us to the rule being challenged: a 2020 final rule that requires industry-funded monitoring for the herring fishery. Under this rule, a targeted 50 percent of commercial herring fishing trips are to be monitored. And while originally NMFS fully funded the placement of observers on herring fishery vessels, in 2018, in response to growing budgetary uncertainties, an amendment to the fishery management plan authorized forcing the fishing industry to pay for the monitoring.

The plaintiffs inRelentlessandLoper Brightfiled separate lawsuits against the secretary of commerce, arguing the MSA did not authorize the Department of Commerce to charge the fishing companies for the cost of observers. Its important tounderstandthat [a]dministrative agencies are creatures of statute and accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.Thus, an agency literally has no power to act unless and until Congress confers power upon it.

In passing the MSA, Congress expressly provided that a fishery management plan may require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery. But the MSA was silent on whether the management plan could mandate commercial fishing companies to pay for the cost of the observers. Elsewhere in the MSA, however, Congress expressly authorized the secretary of commerce to collect fees to fund observer programs.

The Commerce Department countered that since Congress authorized it to prescribe such other measures [or] requirements as are necessary to conserve the fishery, it had the authority to require commercial fishing companies to pay the cost of observers.

The lower courts concluded the MSA was ambiguous concerning whether the Commerce Department could require the fishing companies to pay the cost of the observers. The courts, nonetheless, upheld the final rule by applying the legal doctrine ofChevrondeference.

Chevrondeference, which was born from the Supreme Court decision inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, requires courts to defer to an agencys interpretation of an ambiguous statute, so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable. Courts owe such deference to the agencys interpretation even if there is a more reasonable interpretation of the statute, a court had previously interpreted the statute in a contrary way, or the agency had previously interpreted the statute differently.

The effects ofChevrondeference cannot be overstated because deference often dictates outcome. And that outcome is whatever the unelected bureaucrats of themorethan 430 federal agencies and other regulatory agencies say it is so long as they sound reasonable.

So while you may not care about fisheries, you should care aboutRelentlessandLoper Brightbecause the justices grantedcertiorari(review) in those cases to decide whether to overrule or narrowChevrondeference.

It is difficult to imagine anything that could be more consequential to the deconstructing of the administrative state than overturningChevron. First, it would end the practice of agencies making important policy decisions that Congress failed to, or refused to, address. Relatedly, it would remove from the executive branch the power to use administrative agencies to force through extreme policy decisions. Further, reversal ofChevronwould likely lead to the end of the related doctrine ofAuer/Seminole Rockdeference, which requires courts to defer to an agencys interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations another legal doctrine girding the administrative state against legal challenges.

Should any doubt remain over the importance of reversingChevrondeference, one need only watch coverage of Wednesdays oral argument and hear the screeching from the left.

Oral arguments will likely focus on several issues, with the concept ofstare decisisfeaturing predominantly. That Latin phrase, translated loosely to stand by that which was decided, is a prudential principle that cautions the court against overturning precedent even when it is wrong. The court will thus face the question of whether to follow the nearly 40-year-old precedent ofChevronor overrule it.

Second, the justices will consider the fishing businesses argument thatChevrondeference violates Article III of the Constitution, which vests all judicial power in the courts, including the power to say what the law is. The court will likely push the parties to explain whether allowing an agency to interpret a statute, which is the essence ofChevrondeference, represents an unconstitutional usurpation of the judiciarys power.

Next, the oral argument will likely consider the petitioners due process argument. Here, the fishing companies argue thatChevrondeference requires the courts to favor the governments position, which violates fundamental concepts of fairness.

The major questions doctrine will likely also find the floor on Wednesday. That doctrine provides that when an administrative agency claims the power to make decisions of vast economic and political significance, the agency must be able to point to clear congressional authorization for the regulation at issue.

WhileChevrondeference is the focus ofRelentlessandLoper Bright, in recent years, the Supreme Court has bypassed that doctrine and instead struck regulations based on the major questions doctrine. The courts recent decision inWest Virginia v. EPAillustrates that approach.

In that case, several states and private parties challenged the Environmental Protection Agencys attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The majority held that because the regulation had vast economic and political significance, the EPA was required to cite clear congressional authority for its regulation of carbon dioxide. Because there was no such clear statutory provision to regulate carbon dioxide, the Supreme Court inWest Virginiaheld the EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations.

The majority inWest Virginia v. EPAaddressed the question of administrative authority through the lens of the major questions doctrine, sidesteppingChevrondeference. Wednesday, however, at least some of the justices are likely to push the attorneys on how to reconcile those two lines of cases.

While predicting how the high court will rule is fraught with risk especially before oral argument various justices have been foreshadowing their predilections for some time. JusticesGorsuch,Thomas, andKavanaughhave all criticizedChevron,and Justices Alito, Barrett, and Roberts have all denied agencies deference under the major questions doctrine.

These facts suggest a majority of the justices may be willing to overturnChevron. And if they do, it will be a mortal blow to the administrative state.

Disclosure: Margot Cleveland isOf Counselwith the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which representsRelentlessand which filed an amicus curiae brief inLoper Bright. The views expressed here are her own.

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.

Read the original here:

How Disgruntled Fishermen Could Prompt SCOTUS To Capsize The Administrative State - The Federalist

A male golfer is one step closer to fulfilling his dream of joining the prestigious Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) after winning first place in a mini-qualifying womens tournament in Florida.

James Scott Davidson, a man masquerading as a woman under the name Hailey Davidson, won the NXXT Womens Classic on Wednesday after he outscored dozens of female professional golfers and made it into the winning playoff. Photos of the competition at the Mission Inn Resort and Club outside of Orlando show Davidson posing with a trophy between two female competitors.

Thanks to his victory, Davidson now leads the NXXT Womens Pro Tour scoreboard by 150 points. Since he began competing against women in 2021 after being deemed eligible due to years of castration drugs and genital mutilation, Davidson raked in thousands of dollars in prize money.

His hijacking of a tournament designed to highlight the achievements of female professional golfers elicited pushback from Americans, a majority of whom oppose men infiltrating womens sports. NXXT CEO Stuart McKinnon tried to quell public outrage with a long statement explaining Davidson meets the LPGA and USGA guidelines for transgender athletes.

The recent discussions surrounding Hailey Davidsons participation and success on our tour have highlighted a range of viewpoints. The NXXT Womens Pro Tour acknowledges these perspectives while emphasizing that our policies and decisions are guided by the frameworks set by the LPGA and USGA. Our primary focus remains on supporting our players aspirations and contributing to their journey towards the LPGA, he wrote.

McKinnon concluded with a pledge to ask Davidson to undergo additional testosterone testing to ensure compliance with the appropriate guidelines. NXXT, as McKinnon wrote, was created to elevate womens golf, providing increased exposure and equitable opportunities.

Like many other international and national sports associations, however, NXXT has sacrificed that goal to accommodate transgender ideology. Studies show eliminating just testosterone as the advantaged genetic factor that sets males apart from females does not ensure physical equality in sex-based competitions.

Allowing men, who have a distinct biological advantage over women, to compete simply because they have artificially deflated their male hormones does not create an inclusive and nurturing environment for all members, as McKinnon claims. Instead, it masks the true disadvantages that manifest if a womans tournament spot is handed to a man.

McKinnon says he plans to survey NXXT tour players about its gender policy because We believe it is vital to consider the perspectives of those directly affected by these policies. Everything he needs to know about the harm caused by allowing men to compete against women, however, is already common knowledge.

Hormone shifts, artificial or pubescent, dont define someones sex. Becoming male or female is decided at conception. No amount of chemical or physical tampering can change the defining chromosomes found in DNA.

Men have a scientifically proven, distinct, and undeniable physical advantage over women in every sport except long-distance swimming. Abandoning the truth about that upper hand doesnt meet NXXTs equitable or inclusive aims. In reality, its an injustice to the professional female golfers who now have to work overtime to beat a man so they can secure a spot in the LPGA.

Banning men from competing against women should be an easy putt for McKinnon, who boasts of empowering professional female golfers like his daughter. Instead, its become yet another disguise used to cover up NXXTs blatant rejection of biology in service to Democrats.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Link:

No Testing Needed To Prove Hailey Davidson Isn't A Woman - The Federalist

Granted, Im not a professional political consultant, but Im starting to get the sense that the Democrats 2024 focus on saving democracy suffers somewhat from their constant efforts to demolish every basic norm of constitutional governance.

Then again, maybe we just need to define our terms, since democracy has been stripped of any useful meaning. The word certainly doesnt signify adherence to the Constitution a document barely, if ever, mentioned by the contemporary left for obvious reasons.

Indeed, for the past eight or so years, many legal and traditional institutions of American governance the Electoral College, the filibuster, two senators in every state, states, open discourse, the Supreme Court, and so on have been framed as nemeses of democracy if they happen to temporarily benefit Republicans.

Virtually every political setback, in fact, has been transformed into an existential threat to the foundations of democracy. Anyone with conventional conservative views, especially social ones, has been reimagined as MAGA extremists or semi-fascists or Christofascists.

Even when originalist justices, the most scrupulous devotees of American democracy in the country, strengthen majoritarianism, as they did handing the abortion issue back to voters where it belonged, Democrats have a collective fainting spell over the future of democracy.

Democrats are positive that asking someone to prove an ID before voting portends the rise of the Fourth Reich, but they have no problem pressuring private companies to censor political speech, ignoring the Supreme Court, unilaterally breaking millions of private contracts to buy votes, using executive power to circumvent the will of voters, and throwing the leading opposition candidate off ballots.

If youre convinced that George W. Bush stole an election or that Donald Trump was selected by a foreign dictator, your griping about denialism holds no weight.

Do you know whats definitely authoritarian, though? Plotting to undermine civilian control of the military. Its one of the big ones.

NBC News reports this week that a network of public interest groups and lawmakers, nervous about former President Trumps potential return to power, is quietly devising plans to foil any effort on his part to pressure the U.S. military to carry out his political agenda.

Dear lord, voters elect the commander-in-chief because of a political agenda. It is literally the militarys job to implement the democratic will of the people. Its right there in the Constitution. Its the point.

Invading Iraq was a political decision, not one made by a Star Chamber, but by the president and senators like Joe Biden. Leaving Afghanistan was a political decision, made by a president who promised the public he would do so if elected. The decision to take the Houthis off the global terror list was a political decision. As was the decision to grant Iran access to billions and to send Palestinian terror groups hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, if voters are unhappy with these decisions, they are free to support someone else the next time around. But if a bunch of unelected right-wing public interest groups and lawmakers, nervous about Bidens failed but completely legal foreign policy decisions, formed a cabal within the government to foil him, it would not be strengthening democracy.

Then again, you remember when Gen. Mark Milley made two phone calls to our top geopolitical foes in China and promised to give them a heads-up should the United States attack? That was another clear-cut subversion of civilian authority over the military. Nothing about those calls comports with democracy. The opposite. Yet Milley is regarded as a hero of the resistance.

And you probably remember Anonymous, as well. The senior Trump administration official who published that overwrought op-ed in The New York Times contending that senior staffers secretly schemed to undercut Trump to protect the American people. I work for the president, wrote Miles Taylor, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Political appointees who join a shadow government to thwart the presidents decisions not because hes been engaged in any unconstitutional or illegal acts, but because they disagreed with him are definitely not the heroes of democracy they imagine themselves. (Taylor is on TV these days warning that Trump might turn off the internet if hes elected for a second term. Jokes on him, though, since Trump already did so when he overturned net neutrality.)

David Axelrod, who worked for a president who acted as if he were a sovereign, contends that if Republican primary voters select Trump as the nominee, it would be a stunning rebuke of the rules, norms, laws and institutions upon which our democracy is founded and would have profound implications for the future.

Now, a lot of that sounds like projection to me. Sometimes, you get the sense that just maybe all this democracy talk is a cynical strategy to hold onto power.

But lets say its true. Every illiberal precedent Democrats set in their own alleged efforts to save our democracy from Trump will also have profound implications for the future. Trump will leave us one day. Democrats constant attacks on governing norms wont.

The rest is here:

Democrats Promise To Save 'Democracy' By Destroying It - The Federalist