Category Archives: Federalist

The Tolkien Society, a literary organization founded in 1969 and dedicated to promoting the works of J.R.R Tolkien, has held an annual academic conference for decades. This years conference, to be held virtually via Zoom on July 3 and 4, is on the theme of Tolkien and Diversity.

Before we go on, understand that the Tolkien Societys president was, and formally remains, the great J.R.R. Tolkien himself. His daughter, Priscilla, currently serves as the vice president. At its annual seminar, scholars present academic papers, archival materials are sometimes displayed and discussed, and a serious effort is generally made to understand and appreciate Tolkiens unique genius. In other words, its not some ramshackle fan club for Middle Earth LARPers.

But this year, seminar attendees will be subjected to something different. Papers to be presented include, Gondor in Transition: A Brief Introduction to Transgender Realities in The Lord of the Rings, The Lossoth: Indigeneity, Identity, and Antiracism, and Something Mighty Queer: Destabilizing Cishetero Amatonormativity in the Works of Tolkien. Pretty much the entire program is like this.

The best thing we can say about a Tolkien conference that presents papers on, say, Pardoning Saruman?: The Queer in Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings, or The Invisible Other: Tolkiens Dwarf-Women and the Feminine Lack, is that the scholars in question do not know the first thing about Tolkien or the meaning of his work.

The worst we can say is that they hate Tolkien and his work, and would like very much to destroy it.

Indeed, how else can we account for such a conference? The Lord of the Rings, like The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and Tolkiens entire corpus of writings on Middle Earth, has almost nothing to say about the concerns expressed in these papers or the worldview from which they spring. There are no transgender realities in the Lord of the Rings. There is nothing to say about the Lossoth a remnant of the ancient people of Forodwaith, a race of hardy men who dwelt in the icy far north of Middle Earth that even remotely relates to contemporary leftist ideas like antiracism. There is no place in a serious discussion of Tolkiens writings for phrases like cishetero amatonormativity.

The only reason to torture Tolkiens work like this is not to understand it more deeply but to tear it down. And why would modern scholars want to do that? Because everything that Tolkien was, and everything he wrote, is an affront to the modern secular scholars understanding of the world, reality, and the meaning and purpose of life.

Put bluntly, the worlds Tolkien created sprang from an imagination shaped and suffused by his deep Roman Catholic faith. The Silmarillion in particular is in some ways a poetic and literary reflection on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In considering Tolkiens Middle Earth, there is no way to escape this reality.

His creation, as he himself said, was a kind of sub-creation under the inspiration and aegis of almighty God. His grand themes good and evil, truth and falsehood, power and glory and honor and sacrifice all flow forth from his Christian faith and his decidedly sacramental view of the world. For Tolkien, all the world is shot through with meaning by a Creator who loves mankind and is manifest in His works.

That men and women now come to slander and distort and ultimately destroy these sub-creations of Tolkien is also, in a strange way, a testament to his legacy. Like Melkor, they are possessed by dark thoughts of their own imaginings, unlike those of the great Tolkien, and seek not so much to increase their own power and glory, but to bring Tolkiens down to their grubby station, where everything can be reduced to race and sex and politics.

These people are taken today to be Tolkien scholars. What can we, who love Tolkien and his profoundly Christian art, do but repeat in sorrow a line from Lament for the Rohirrim

The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.

See more here:

In An Affront To Its Namesake, The Tolkien Society Goes Woke - The Federalist

Last week, the Biden administration gave Iran what it wanted. Without consulting Congress, the administration lifted sanctions on multiple former Iranian officials and businesses, thereby relaxing U.S. pressure on the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee werent amused. On the contrary, they continue to assert that the administration chose not to consult Congress about the lifted sanctions in order to intentionally bypass legislative oversight. These Republicans are now demanding an explanation.

The State Department announced the sanctions were lifted as a result of a verified change in status or behavior on the part of the sanctioned parties and that [t]hese actions demonstrate [Americas] commitment to lifting sanctions in the event of a change in status or behavior by sanctioned persons. The Treasury Department echoed this announcement. Meanwhile, the State Department imposed new sanctions on an Iranian-backed supply network to the Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

While the Biden administration contends that the lifted sanctions are unrelated to continued negotiations with the Iranian regime in Vienna, Rep. Claudia Tenney and some of her colleagues say the Biden administration is lying. They demand that the State Department share its internal plans.

Tenney and some colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are so concerned by the Biden administrations handling of U.S.-Iran relations that they initiated a congressional review on Thursday. The Washington Free Beacon notes this review could unearth evidence [that] the State Department lifted sanctions as part of a package of concessions meant to appease Iranian officials, as U.S. diplomats negotiate a revamped nuclear agreement with Tehran.

The Washington Free Beacon proceeds to write that the Biden administration is struggling to productively negotiate with Tehran, leading to potentially desperate measures: While senior Biden administration officials initially vowed to keep [the Trump administrations] sanctions in place until Iran agreed to a stricter nuclear agreement, the administration has moved in recent months to relax pressure to keep Iran at the bargaining table. Moreover, Talks in Vienna have largely stalled over Irans refusal to roll back portions of its nuclear program.

In the congressional correspondence obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee address Secretary of State Antony Blinken to express [their] serious concern regarding the lifted sanctions. They emphasize that Iran continues to hold American citizens hostage, expand its nuclear enrichment program, and export terrorism across the region.

These Republicans remind the Biden administration that it promised to consult Congress about U.S.-Iran policies, but has failed to do so.

In the letter, Republicans also remind the administration that it promised it wouldnt reward Iran with concessions until the regime came into full compliance with the original 2015 nuclear accord. Today, the regime remains non-compliant and has increased its stockpile of enriched uranium to 60%, which is near the quantity required for an atomic weapon.

Iran also continues to fund regional terrorist groups like Hamas. Iran sanctions have nonetheless been lifted by the Biden administration.

In their congressional correspondence, members of the GOP pose numerous questions of concern to the administration. Why were committee members not made aware in advance of these high-profile delistings of Iranian targets? they ask Blinken. Furthermore, why did you fail to inform either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of this pending action when you testified before these committees on June 7 and June 8, respectively?

Given that Iran continues to support terrorism in the region, expand its nuclear program, and violate U.S. sanctions on exports of oil and petrochemicals, why have the Departments of State and the Treasury made the decision to prioritize the removal of Iranian sanctions violators over other competing priorities? GOP members add. They demand answers, as well as detailed information concerning any inter-administration discussions about the lifted sanctions.

It frequently takes weeks or even months for sanctions to be reprieved, and the Biden administrations justifications for expediting the process remain unclear. The Washington Free Beacon notes that members of the GOP demand the State Department prove these sanctions were not lifted as part of a behind-the-scenes bid to push negotiations over a deal further along.

Members of the GOP assert that only a policy of strength and moral clarity toward the brutal regime in Iran will advance Americas interests.We already have grave concerns about this [a]dministrations willingness to chase these terrorist mullahs around the world begging them to reenter a flawed deal, they write. Now we are even more concerned that [the administration is] walking back [its] commitment to hold firm on existing sanctions until a new deal is reached and Iran reverses its nuclear program.

While the House Foreign Affairs Committee probes this issue, the Republican Study Committee has also spearheaded a parallel investigation.

Read the original post:

GOP Angry After Biden Lifts Iran Sanctions Without Consulting Congress - The Federalist

Twenty-two wildlife conservation organizations are urging Senate leaders to reject the nomination of Bidens Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) director pick David Chipman due to his long record of radical anti-firearm statements and actions.

Their letter, written to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., last week, is the latest call from organizations urging the Senate not to confirm Chipman, an anti-gun lobbyist, to ATF leadership.

At the outset, we would note that the majority of the undersigned organizations have never opposed an ATF nominee, the groups stated. Given Mr. Chipmans longstanding public activism against our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage, however, we are compelled to oppose his nomination. Many of us, for example, are concerned that confirming a high-ranking official of one of the countrys most prolific anti-gun organizations would politicize a traditionally apolitical bureau. Others fear Mr. Chipman will weaponize the directorship and lead to the undermining of our Second Amendment rights through punitive administrative actions.

The groups specifically reference that many new gun owners are minorities and women, and that there has been a 41 percent increase in female hunters. This increase in shooting sports activities was accompanied by a 7.6% increase in hunting license sales, which are a vital funding source for state wildlife programs, the letter says.

Chipman reiterated in his confirmation hearing his support for a ban on AR-15s. He likewise called for an assault weapons ban in 2019 during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. There is no indication that the nominee is not still employed at Giffords, a gun-control group, which supports a ban on so-called assault weapons as well as large-capacity magazines. Chipmans resume still lists Giffords as present.

Chipman would be a very bad head of the ATF and were doing everything we can to get that confirmation to not happen, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, one of the signers, told The Federalist.

The groups that signed the letter include:

Below is the letter in opposition to Chipmans confirmation.

AWCP Letter in Opposition to Chipman Nomination (06-11-21) by The Federalist on Scribd

Read more here:

22 Wildlife Conservation Groups Send Letter Opposing Chipman As ATF Head - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Margarita Mooney-Suarez of the Princeton Theological Seminary; Jenet Erickson, a fellow at the Insitute of Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute; and Brad Wilcox, a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and a professor at the University of Virginia, join Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the Republican response to family policy.

Its time for us to move beyond Nikki Haley-ism, kind of classic fusionist thinking about family policy confusing with poverty policy and thinking about bold new policies that make it easier for working and middle-class families to have kids and to raise their kids successfully, Wilcox said. Its also important for us to note on the conservative side ledger that if we dont do this, were going to have to kind of cede the policy arena to people like Senator Elizabeth Warren or President Joe Biden who much more statist, workist agenda.

We must also reframe the way we think about childcare, they said .

The data show conclusively that women have different paths to fulfillment and work is a part of it, Mooney-Suarez said.

You cant pay anybody to do that for a child,that natural inborn capacity for parents to bond with children and impact their development, Erickson added. The government is not an effective replacement.

Read Wilcoxs article Why parents need the flexibility of cash payments more than universal child care here.

Listen here:

Read this article:

The GOP Needs To Become Invested In Family Policy The Federalist 19h - The Federalist

The following is a transcript of my radar from Tuesdays edition of Rising on Hill TV.

Id introduce you to the New Contras, but you already know them: Andrew Schulz, Michael Malice, Katie Halper, Katie Herzog and, of course, Joe Rogan. This show itself has been a huge driving force behind the New Contra movement Federalist publisher Ben Domenech and I sought to describe in an article we published on Election Day last year.

In December, we wrote a follow-up, inspired by a telling set of parallel departures at Vox. Ezra Klein went to the Grey Lady. Matthew Yglesias went to Substack.

In corporate media, heterodox thought is rewarded with closed doors, we wrote. In the Wild West of todays new media, its rewarded with subscriptions. While it may sound laughable that Klein and Yglesias will enjoy similar levels of influenceone at the Paper of Record and the other at an independent newsletterits mostly true. And thats a blindspot legacy outlets still havent corrected.

But those outlets have little incentive to correct their blindspots in this splintered media economy, where Stephen Colbert can be both the most polarizing and successful late-night host and papers like the New York Times can retract anodyne op-eds from Republican senators for violating thoughtcrimes and actually please their readership. Were all in niches now.

So the currency is trust. For polarized media consumers, that means listening to talk radio or reading the Times. For everyone in between, trust is increasingly boosting voices that prize authenticity over gloss. The gatekeepers are gone or corrupt. Nobody knows who to trust and for good reason so people who level with us about that are doing well. Thats what happened with Rising. Its why Im a longtime viewer, like many of you and why Ive been working three jobs for the past few weeks, dragging myself out of bed too early, despite being the most anti-morning person ever. This show is part of something really important.

Just last week, Ryan Grim and I went a little bit viral for sparring over the legacy American imperialism. We didnt mean to, we were just talking, covering the news as we had done all week. We were actually amused by the strong reaction. I think it revealed something really interesting and, perhaps, impossible about the political realignment, with one sides motivation moored in a reverence for the country and the others in a genuine, good faith disdain for it.

Thats a disconnect thats best exposed and explored through good-faith debate. But this is exactly the point. Jon Stewarts legendary death blow to Crossfire wasnt as great as the corporate press likes to remember. Its good to see representative political debate in the media. In its absence, something quite ugly can develop.

Enter Jeff Bezos. On Wednesday, Jeff Bezos announced a career accomplishment that the movie archvillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld could only dream about: owning James Bond, Rachel Bovard wrote in The Federalist. Her headline was brilliant: Theres No James Bond To Stop Jeff Bezos From Increasing His Global Power.

With his empty expressions and robotic cadence, Bezos really is the perfect Bond villain. Hes a Bond villain whos now in charge of the Bond villains. The question of market economics, however, is separate from the cultural consequences of Amazon taking ownership of yet another avenue of expression in America, wrote Bovard, who then walked through a list of egregious efforts on Amazons behalf to preserve a cultural monopoly: yanking a totally inoffensive documentary about Clarence Thomas during Back History Month, deplatforming Parler like it had deplatformed Wikileaks, stopping sales of books that question the excesses of transgender ideology on children.

Think what you want about Clarence Thomas or Parler or Ryan Anderson. Whats troubling is that executives at one of the biggest platforms for retail and web hosting believe their bar for company censorship should be that low, despite their market share being so high.

Heres more from Bovard:

Americas rich speech traditions are built around robust dissent, counternarrative, and the clang and clash of ideas in the public square. Free expression is central to our flourishing. Americans want our books to be controversial, our media to be curious, and our films to be creative. But the genius of that creation is sparked by fearlessnessthe kind which only exists when the public square is brimming with voices, rather than the antiseptic sameness of a solely owned company town.

There is no way I couldve said it better than that. And its what Americas monopolists dont understand about the public. Their cultural monopolies are powerful, but perhaps not as powerful as their economic ones, connected as they are. Demand for heterodox thought and charged debate is increasing as monopolists like Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, try to bring the public discourse under their control.

Culture is what creates demand. These companies control the biggest podcasting platforms, web services, video streamers, etc. But, as Andrew Schulz told us late last year, All these corporations act all woke, but what they really want is the dollar.

His Netflix show debuted a few weeks later.

None of this is to say todays monopolists dont warrant regulatory checks. True conservatism should be as hostile to cronyism as progressivism.

But sometimes its important to prioritize cultural checks as well.

Visit link:

Why An Amazon-MGM Marriage Will Threaten And Invigorate Art - The Federalist

Most people havent heard of the Aspen Institute. Others maybe recall some mention of their annual Aspen Ideas Festival. A few more might somewhat remember a minor political dust-up from 2020 when Michael Bloomberg, who was blowing money on a doomed bid for president at the time, had to grovel and beg forgiveness for simply stating the facts on crime at an Aspen conference five years prior.

The festival, which The Economist called a mountain retreat for the liberal elite and a corporate Never-Never Land, refused to release the video; its a safe space for the right types of people, and liberal billionaire technocrats are precisely the right type of people.

And you better believe the right types of people are sitting on the institutes Commission on Information Disorder. Behind the psychiatric name, the commission is a group of liberal activists, donors, journalists and tech executives, a disgraced foreign royal, and even a corporate senior vice president of social impact, who must be in charge of all the junior corporate vice presidents for diversity. For the past six months, this liberal Dream Team has been hard at work on their big report to help the federal government work with corporations to squash news they call disinformation.

So what will this disinformation be? A look at the commissioners hints strongly that it will be you, me, and anyone else who disagrees with Katie Couric and her left-wing friends.

Katie Couric specifically, because she sits on the commission. Once a household name for her long role on NBCs The Today Show, including nine years of smiling and bantering with serial creep and accused company rapist Matt Lauer, Couric was canceled in 2013 after failing to earn ratings on her own show, and slowly drifted into obscurity.

From her landing spot, an online show with Yahoo!, Couric ran a disinformation campaign against an investigator who had exposed Planned Parenthood for selling harvested body parts from aborted babies. Couric falsely claimed the videos were doctored, and ran puff pieces on the president of the countrys largest abortion clinic. In her spare time, Couric is an abortion activist, and says her activism is inspired by her mother, whose pregnancy she clearly survived.

Couric also used her internet show to falsify documentary interviews with gun owners. In that case, the deception was so embarrassing even her friends at CNN and The New York Times called it out, while The Washington Post said it falsely depicts gun supporters as idiots' and was just plain wrong. While the director took the blame and apologized, Couric defended her disinformation.

While at 64 years of age her television career is now largely relegated to trying to guest host a game show, Couric was invited on Real Time with Bill Maher in January, after Joe Biden had won the presidency. There, she lashed out at the half of the country who supported the conservative populist Trump administration, saying, The question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump.

Couric is joined on the commission by Kathryn Murdoch, the wife of billionaire heir James Murdoch, Ruperts liberal son. Kathryns biography on the website of the company she founded claims she started her career as a marketing and communications executive in New York and Hong Kong before launching and selling a clothing design company. Corroborating information on her past is hard to come by, although an early 2008 mention of her in Vanity Fair might dispute her company bio, describing her as an Oregon-born model who met her rich husband at a yacht party in Sydney[, Australia].

Today, Kathryn and her husband are together among the biggest super donors in left-wing politics. In 2020 they gave roughly $12.2 million to federal committees, ranking 25th on OpenSecrets list of top donors, the donor transparency site reports. She also donated $540,000 to the Democratic Future Forward PAC, and $300,000 to Unite the Country, a pro-Biden PAC.

When not sitting on commissions to decide what conservatives should be permitted to say, Kathryn is a major donor to a notorious disinformation campaign. In the last election cycle, she gave $500,000 half a million dollars to PACRONYM, which works closely with ACRONYM, which was the lead example in an OpenSecrets expose on Dark Money, exploring how networks hide political agendas behind fake news sites.

Describing ACRONYM as one of the newer group heralding the new era of pseudo-news outlets, the report exposes it as being behind Courier Newsroom, a network of websites emulating progressive local news outlets.Courier, it continues, has faced scrutiny for exploiting the collapse of local journalism to spread hyperlocal partisan propaganda.

Her passion for crushing conservative disinformation stems from her severe dislike of scientists who doubt man-made global warming, as well as the scientists and news sites who in the first year of COVID lockdowns repeatedly warned we were being lied to. In the months since Biden became president, corporate media have come around to virtually every point dissenters made, including on the efficacy of masks, the source of the virus, the impact of novel treatments, and the failure of lockdowns.

Disgraced royalPrince Harry also sits on the commission. Just before his Aspen Institute glamour gig was announced, the duke of Sussex made news calling the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights bonkers while admitting free speech is a huge subject and one I dont understand.

Rashad Robinson also made the truth commissions cut, co-chairing Aspens effort from his perch as the president of Color of Change. That organization was founded by fired Obama green jobs czar Van Jones and a director of the left-wing activist organization MoveOn.org, and its claim to fame is intimidating conservative donors and corporations who donate to Republican and conservative causes by threatening them with public campaigns, effectively silencing opposition to Democratic initiatives.

Their commission colleagues also include Marla Blow, a senior vice president of social impact at the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth; Democratic politician Aaron Ford;Democratic megadonor Craig Newmark, whose personal non-profit is fully funding the commission; Chris Krebs, who in his previous role overseeing 2020 election security infamously went above his paygrade when he called it the most secure [election] in American history; and Alex Stamos, a former Facebook executive who said the problem with tackling conservative television networks OANN and Newsmax is that these companies have freedom of speech and suggested that corporate cable providers should take it upon themselves to shut them down.

The 14-person commission includes one Republican, former Rep. Will Hurd. Hurds inclusion was characterized by American Principles Project President Terry Schilling as part of the typical progressive playbook of Lets pretend we arent biased, lets pretend were non-partisan, well include a token Republican whos not really conservative to say that its bipartisan.

Our sterling commissions interim report is reportedly due before June 19, but we already know whats coming, dont we.

Haley Stracks research contributed to this report.

Read more from the original source:

Behind The Aspen Institute's Upcoming Report On Silencing Dissent - The Federalist

Warmonger Rep. Liz Cheney is putting the forever in forever war by condemning her fellow congressional colleagues who voted to repeal the two-decade-old Authorization for Use of Military Force used by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

AUMF repeal without comprehensive replacement is dangerous, misguided, and ignores the security challenges facing our nation. This legislation removes a critical tool used by previous administrations Republican and Democrat to defeat terrorist threats originating in Iraq, the Wyoming representative who wasousted from House leadership wrote in a statement.

Despite her insistence that the repeal would send a message of weakness to our adversaries and allies alike and that it is not part of a comprehensive replacement providing adequate authority to combat terrorists or those who want to do our nation harm is a vote to leave America exposed to our enemies, the lower chamber voted 268 to 161 to remove the authorization.

The repeal comes after nearly 20 years of aimless military adventurism enabled by the authorization and multiple attempts to cut off the blank check to keep American soldiers overseas.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell echoed Cheneys concerns about repealing the funding but multiple Republican representatives voted in favor of getting rid of the measure and noted that it was no longer relevant.

The 2002 AUMF is no longer relevant and its repeal would not impact ongoing operations in the Middle East, Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin said in a statement calling the vote a matter of basic constitutional hygiene and a small but significant step forward in reasserting Congresss war powers authorities.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read more here:

Representative Liz Cheney Puts The 'Forever' In 'Forever War' - The Federalist

A new survey indicates that although many have not heard of critical race theory, a mere 1 in 10 teachers have a negative view of it, while three times as many teachers hold a positive view of the effort to institutionalize anti-white racism.

The Heritage Foundations report, first obtained by The Federalist, displays the survey responses of 1,003 teachers and 1,012 parents on questions of civics education and critical race theory. Braun Research conducted the survey from Dec. 30, 2020, to Feb. 2, 2021.

Findings show a majority of respondents held a neutral, positive, or unsure view of critical race theory. More than half of teachers who have heard of critical race theory approve of it. And despite the flood of media attention to the subject, more than one-third of teachers have not heard of critical race theory, with 40 percent of parents in the same boat. A little more than one-quarter of parents and teachers, respectively, were unsure if they had heard of critical race theory.

Schools should recommit themselves to teaching history and civics that educates students on the duties of informed citizenship, said Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at Heritage and one of the reports co-authors. They should also be maximally transparent to parents about the content taught between the four walls of the classroom. And most importantly, states should make sure every child can exercise education freedom, choosing a school or learning environment that is the right fit for them.

Angela Sailor, another report coauthor who is vice president of Heritages Edwin J. Feulner Institute, said, The next generation deserves strong partnerships between parents and teachers. This begins with curriculum transparency and policy solutions that protect the diversity of ideas in the classroom and restore a shared sense of equality under the law. All students no matter their race should be protected from being forced to affirm, adopt, or adhere to CRT through compelled speech and other practices.

One-fourth of Republican parents said current civics curriculum should stay the same, while more than half of Democrat parents said more civics instruction is needed. Among Republican teachers, a little less than half said civics curriculum should stay the same and more than 70 percent of Democrats said there ought to be more.

It is important to keep in mind that the term civics has been convoluted by a surge in schools and theorists framing critical race theory curricula as action civics or similar terminology. The findings echo this, showing more than one-third of parents and more than one-fourth of teachers view critical race theory and critical pedagogy as part of an ideal curriculum.

Half of parents and close to 60 percent of teachers indicated critical race theory should be included in civics curriculum. The report notes it wasnt clear if this response combined with the lack of knowledge about CRT indicates large numbers of people supported CRT in schools out of a desire to be inclusive without knowing what they were including.

The report alludes to the redefinition of civics, noting, Americans education of their history and founding is in crisis as radical activists push anti-American philosophies on students under the guise of civics education.

Given the overall lack of familiarity with the term, future surveys might do better to ask for reactions to specific tenets of CRT [critical race theory]. That said, the results do suggest that teachers are more positively inclined to CRT than parents, Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Federalist. This is entirely unsurprising. What this survey shows is that we are at the beginning of the battle, and that the outcome is far from evident. Educating parents on the true nature of CRT will be a key determinant of end-result.

Other authors of the report are Anne Segal, founder of predictive market research group The Frontier Lab, and Adam Kissel, a senior fellow at the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia policy. There is a 95 percent confidence level in the survey findings.

Critical race teachings are reversing the immense progress this country has made in race relations and equality, as well as stealing major parts of history from students, beginning with small children, the report states. Young Americans are taught not to be proud of their country, but to see it as an oppressor. In order to reverse this destructive and dangerous trend, it is essential that schools teach Americas founding principles, while at the same time build strong relationships between parents and teachers.

Follow this link:

Three-Quarters Of Teachers Who Heard Of Critical Race Theory Support It - The Federalist

House Democrats blocked a GOP-backed bill on Monday night that would have stopped President Joe Bidens border crisis head Vice President Kamala Harris from taxpayer-funded international trips until she visits the U.S.-Mexico border and submits a report on the crisis to Congress.

In a 217-203 vote, House Democrats narrowly stopped the legislation, effectively preventing the legislative chamber from requiring that Harris visit any of the border counties that are trying to handle the skyrocketing number of people illegally entering the United States. Harris was tapped by the Democrat administration to lead the White House response to the border crisis more than two months ago.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, a freshman congresswoman from Iowa, first introduced the See the Crisis Act in May in an effort to prevent American taxpayer dollars from funding the vice presidents international frolicking while ignoring the U.S. border crisis.

During her presentation of the bill on Monday night, Hinson criticized Harris for failing the American people, failing law enforcement at the border, and failing the families who will suffer because of drugs coming across our border and falling into the wrong hands.

Vice President Harris was named as administrations point person on the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border 80 days ago. And this crisis is worsening by the day. Yet, the vice president has refused to go to the border herself and talk to the brave law enforcement officers, the men, and women who are fighting this on the frontlines, Hinson said on the House floor on Monday night. And this sends a clear message to the cartels that the U.S. government doesnt think it a priority to stop them.

Last week, Harris defended her refusal to visit the U.S.-Mexico border, where an illegal crossingcrisisrages on, by comparing it to her lack of presence in other foreign countries in Europe.

You havent been to the border, interviewer Lester Holt noted.

I havent been to Europe, Harris said, shrugging off the implications of the question. And I dont understand the point that youre making. Im not discounting the importance of the border.

She also used her visit to Guatemala, one of the Northern Triangle countries, as an excuse to claim that it would give her insight into the root causes of the influx of illegal border crossings. During her time on the trip, however, she ignored Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammatteis pleas for the U.S. administration to do something about the rise in illegal aliens, instead blaming border problems on climate change and the economy.

According to thenewest monthly data, U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended more than 180,000 people at the southern border in May 2021 alone. That is 14,000 more captures than the last record number of May border crossings in 2000.

In addition to a rise insingle individuals crossing the border, not families, Border Patrol agents also saw a significant increase in drug trafficking. In May alone, officials seized at least 18 percent more drugs than they did in April, with seizures of methamphetamine increasing by 53 percent, heroin by 7 percent, and fentanyl by 9 percent.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read more here:

Democrats Block Bill Forcing Kamala Harris To Visit The Southern Border - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Political Editor John Daniel Davidson joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his most recent trip to the Southern U.S. border and why people from far-flung places like Haiti, Venezuela, Africa, and even Uzbekistan are choosing to cross in remote and historically less-busy areas.

A lot of the people that are crossing arent necessarily impoverished farmers like you see at the Rio Grande Valley from Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala, Davidson said. They are people of means in their home country and theyve been waiting and saving and picking their moment so they are not showing up with nothing. They are showing up with means and they have a plan and theyve been thinking about this for a long time.

Davidson said people will continue to pour across the border because the Biden administration is encouraging them to come.

If you signal that the border is open and then it really is, it doesnt matter what you say in terms of what you would like people in Central America to do Unless you actually turn them back at the border, they are going to come because they know that they have a chance now, Davidson said.

[Read Davidsons latest dispatch: On A Remote Stretch Of Texas Borderland, The Whole World Is Crossing The Rio Grande]

Listen here:

Continue reading here:

The Truth Behind The Surge At The Southern Border - The Federalist