Category Archives: Federalist

Googles YouTube has stepped up its draconian censorship of a sitting U.S. senator.

The powerful video-sharing company removed a video of a speech given by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and banned him from uploading new videos for at least seven days. The action took place several months after YouTube removed two videos of testimony given at a hearing he hosted of the Senates Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the topic of early treatment of COVID-19.

In the video YouTube censors are prohibiting the public from viewing, Johnson took bureaucrats in the Trump and Biden administrations to task for not only ignoring but working against robust research [on] the use of cheap, generic drugs to be repurposed for early treatment of COVID.

While large pharmaceutical companies and their allies in government bureaucracies and the World Health Organization have focused their research and funding on new treatments for the novel coronavirus, some doctors and studies have argued for the use of drugs that have been on the market for decades. The patents for the drugs have expired, meaning they are now manufactured by multiple companies who would share in the profit. Therefore trials involving the drugs have to be funded by the government and private donors.

Johnson noted that he held two hearings on early treatment for COVID-19. He said one of the people testifying at one of the hearings talked about the four pillars of pandemic response, those being prevention of the spread of the virus, early treatment, treatment in the hospital, and vaccines.

It always baffled me that there was such a concerted effort to deny the American public the type of robust exploration research into early treatment early in this pandemic, Johnson said, explaining why he wanted to bring more focus to that topic. He noted that studies have shown that both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are incredibly safe drugs.

Both drugs have been on the market for decades and are recommended for various uses, such as Lupus and scabies. Currently, the National Institutes of Health recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19, after a study showed it did no harm but did not provide benefit. NIH is currently neutral on the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, a shift from a previous recommendation against its use.

While most pharmaceutical companies and countries funding research arent evaluating the two drugs for robust study, some recent studies have buttressed defenders hope in the treatment. See, for example, this study awaiting peer review on positive outcomes associated with multi-drug treatment including hydroxychloroquine, and this similarly not-yet-reviewed study out of Argentina on ivermectin.

YouTube said it was censoring discussion of the drug as part of its policy against medical misinformation, which says it wont allow anything that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organizations (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.

WHO scientists and other local authorities have changed their position on whether masks are ineffective or need to be doubled up, whether a vaccine could be developed in a few months, whether asymptomatic spread was a problem, whether spread occurred via infected surfaces, whether children were at significant risk from the virus, whether the economic lockdown would require only 15 days to flatten the curve or more than a year, and whether the novel coronavirus appeared naturally or accidentally leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

YouTubes position is that content on the site must parrot whatever comes from its narrow set of authorities, even though their positions change frequently and dramatically as more is learned about the novel coronavirus.

YouTube has left uncensored a lengthy video chat between Bret Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory, a prominent advocate of treating COVID-19 patients with ivermectin. The duo discussed the topic of the censorship of debate and discussion on effective treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Weinstein said, There is something about the mindset of the moment in which its all about peer review and these published peer-reviewed papers and its all about the official guidance from the WHO and the CDC. Its basically a kind of intellectual authoritarianism that is so bizarre in the context of a complex system like medicine, especially in the context of a brand new disease that were all not experts in. There are no experts that we can simply default to. Everyone is a novice.

In the censored video, Johnson said he supports Operation Warp Speed, which fast-tracked vaccines, but that more is needed with regard to early treatment for COVID-19 patients. I thought it was brilliant the way the Trump administration squeezed all of the economic efficiencies out of producing the vaccine, but I think were still going to need early treatments since the coronavirus isnt going away, he said.

He noted that some world-renowned experts have come to a different conclusion than our health agencies and that the health agencies had pretty well sabotaged the ability for many doctors to even consider hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or other of these multi-drug generic repurpose drug approaches here.

When YouTube censored videos of Senate testimony, Johnson wrote for the Wall Street Journal about it. The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldnt be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all, he wrote.

In April, Google pulled a video of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on March 18 discussing COVID-19 with medical scientists Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas, who all hail from elite institutions Stanford University, Harvard University, and Oxford University.

For science to work, you have to have an open exchange of ideas, Bhattacharya said of the censorship. If youre going to make an argument that something is misinformation, you should provide an actual argument. You cant just take it down and say, Oh, its misinformation without actually giving a reason. And saying, Look it disagrees with the CDC is not enough of a reason. Lets hear the argument, lets see the evidence that YouTube used to decide it was misinformation. Lets have a debate. Science works best when we have an open debate.

Kulldorf weighed in as well, saying at an April press conference, Im very worried about the future of science because science is dependent on free exchange of ideas and it has been for 300 years now. So if this continues, this kind of attitude, the censoring of scientific views, then I think we have reached the end of 200 years of Enlightenment.

Read more here:

YouTube Bans Sen. Ron Johnson For Discussing Treatment Of COVID-19 - The Federalist

From promoting a body mass index so low that all 12 ribs are showing to advancing a plus-size campaign that teaches women its ok to be unhealthy, Victorias Secret has culturally defined what it means to look like a woman. Although VS has re-defined that image countless times, the company couldnt have gotten it more wrong than their most recent campaign.

The lingerie brand just announced its more inclusive rebrand campaign that hopes to positively impact the lives of women through new products. Heading the initiative are changemakers who make up the VS Collective, including U.S. womens soccer star Megan Rapinoe, actress Priyanka Chopra Jonas, model Adut Akech, and plus-sized model Paloma Elsesser. VS first openly transgender model, Valentina Sampaio who respected the female body so much that he morphed his own to look like one will also represent the brand.

The VS Collective will aim to empower women through a series of collaborations, business partnerships and cause-related initiatives. Many of the new VS representatives have echoed similar sentiments: Rapinoe is thrilled to be creating a space that sees the true spectrum of ALL women, and Chopra Jones said shes excited to shape the evolution and future success of a heritage brand like Victorias Secret.

Victorias Secret has never supported ALL women what makes the company think theyll be able to start now?

The brand is best known for its annual Victorias Secret Fashion Show, where 60 Victorias Secret Angels wear skimpy lingerie and large 30-pound Angel wings. VS built a brand from having the skinniest, most fit and sexy women walk down its runway, but the promoted body standard is unsustainable: models must be five foot nine, have a waist of 24 inches or less, and a body fat percentage lower than 18. The average adult woman has a waist size of 38.2 inches and a body fat percentage of 29.6.

Even the Angels cant sustain the harsh standards: Seasoned Angel Adriana Lima doesnt eat solid food nine days before the show, many models abstain from drinking water, and starvation diets are expected and encouraged. How empowered can a woman feel when shes starving herself?

VS has since canceled its live fashion show, but its brand still embodies the same message: To be a beautiful woman, you must accept our version of femininity.

The VS Collective campaign hasnt changed that message at all its just warped what femininity looks like even further. Now, the message will just be promoted by woke, radical feminists who dont even believe in real females at all.

In an op-ed, Rapinoe said lack of funding is a bigger threat to sports than allowing transgender children to compete with whatever gender they identify as.

When we tell transgender girls that they cant play girls sports, they miss out on these important experiences and opportunities, Rapinoe said, adding that adults who feel otherwise lose the right to say we care about children.

Hear that, VS lovers? If you think girls should play with girls and boys should play with boys, the face of the VS brand doesnt think you have a say. Nothing is more dangerous to femininity than denying biological differences between the two genders except exploiting young children to do the same.

Despite her loud feminist cries for more women supporting women, Chopra Jonas publicly bullied social influencer Ayesha Malik. When Malik called United Nations Goodwill ambassador Chopra Jonas a hypocrite for congratulating the Indian Air Force after the Balakot strike in Pakistan, Chopra Jones patronizingly said: Whenever youre done venting. Got it? Done? Okay, cool The way you came at me right now, girl, dont yell. Were all here for love. Dont yell. Dont embarrass yourself.

Malik wasnt trying to make an overly political statement she was making the point that as an advocate for women, Chopra Jones has the responsibility to be neighborly and loving And instead she tweeted out in favour for nuclear war.

But the jewel on top of the Fantasy bra is Valentina Sampaio, who made headlines as Victorias Secrets first transgender model. Rapinoe previously blasted VS for promoting a message that was patriarchal, sexist, viewing not just what it meant to be sexy but what the clothes were trying to accomplish through a male lens and through what men desired yet biological male Sampaio will be heading an effort to reshape the brand. I prefer women representing my womanly interests. And Im not alone.

VS new woke representatives have ostracized a large base who dont agree with their re-definition of womanly standards. Women were made to be women where are the feminists who praise our natural, inherent beauty as uniquely made females?

Sexuality is beautiful and should be treasured. Women should be lauded for their sexuality in the right way, not by hyper-sexualizing their bodies or stripping femininity away completely, but by being honored. Women like conventional beauty, pretty clothes, and bras that fit, and yes, we even like being desirable.

Despite what woke corporations tell you, we dont all want to reject what it means to be feminine not in our clothes, or our brand representatives. The future of Victorias Secret wont be skin-and-bone Angels, but it might be bedazzled jockstraps. Im not ok with either.

Haley Strack is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College studying politics and journalism.

Read the original here:

Victoria's Secret Never Empowered Women And Their Latest Marketing Ploy Won't Change That - The Federalist

Former Philadelphia 76ers star Charles Barkley has to table the fat jokes, thanks to heightened social sensitivities and looming cancel culture.

They wont even let me talk about San Antonio anymore! You know, when Im always talking about them big ol women down in San Antonio? Barkley told Grant Paulsen and Danny Rouhier on Mondays Grant and Danny show on 106.7 The Fan. The comments came after Turner Network Television (TNT), Barkleys network, put a stop to his jokes about San Antonio women, he said.

Barkley has been criticized formaking jokes about overweight women in San Antonio in the past. To be fair, San Antonio was ranked among the fattest cities in the U.S., and Barkley routinely makes jokes about his own weight as well. But as he pointed out on Monday, Barkley hasnt called anyone personally fat. Nevertheless, TNT has stifled Barkleys jokes, to create a more mindful presence on the show.

Theyre coming for your head, and a lot of our bosses are cowards, Barkley said. I said, Context matters. Theyre like, Context doesnt matter. I said, Thats total B.S. Context always has to matter. But now, if you crack a joke the wrong way, theyre like, Oh, no, no, no, no. You crossed a line.

Barkley has a long track record of being a controversial yet hilarious figure. The NBA analyst regularly makes jokes about women, health, medical conditions, and more jokes that cancel culture usually viciously attacks. According to Barkley, he has to watch what he says, or else.

Thats all we ever talk about behind the scenes now, like, be careful of going in this direction, Barkley said. Im like, yo man, we cant even have fun anymore. Weve had fun all these years and now all of a sudden in the last year and a half everybody is trying to get everybody fired and it really sucks.

In 58-year-old Barkleys many years of unfiltered controversial comments, hes never been canceled. But the pressure from politically correct people and the cancel culture mob could ruin his NBA on TNT show by stripping the fun from it.

You cant even have fun nowadays without these jackasses trying to get you canceled and things like that, Barkley said. Im trying to hang on for another couple years until Im 60 and then they can kiss my ass.

Haley Strack is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College studying politics and journalism.

Read the original post:

Charles Barkley's Fun Is Over, Thanks To Cancel Culture - The Federalist

President Joe Biden told reporters following his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that he thinks theyre the smartest people in the entire country.

You all are some of the brightest people in the country, Biden said. I mean it, Im not being solicitous. But it makes no sense for me to negotiate with you!

Bidens fawning came just minutes after he lashed out at CNN White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins for asking why he was confident Putin would change his behavior following the meeting.

Im not confident, Biden yelled as he turned around to face the press pool. What the hell, what do you do all the time? When did I say I was confident? Lets get this straight. I said what will change their behavior is if the rest of the world reacts to them and it diminishes their standing in the world.

He also claimed the reporter was in the wrong business if she couldnt understand his claim the meeting with Putin was constructive despite the Russian presidents downplaying of human rights abuses.

Biden later apologized to Collins for being a wise guy but not without throwing another round of criticism at the White House press pool.

To be a good reporter, youve got to be negative. Youve gotta have a negative view of life, ok, it seems to me, the way you allyou never ask a positive question, Biden said.

Biden and his Vice President Kamala Harris both have a history of snapping at their Democrat cronies in the corporate media. The media cheerleaders offer the administration a wide berth, with hard-hitting coverage of the White House on topics like Harris Timberland boots, Bidens dogs, Bidens hangouts with his grandkids playing Mario Kart at Camp David, and more. But that doesnt stop Biden from being quick to criticize reporters for going too hard on him.

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

See the original post:

Biden Tells Sycophantic Press They're The Smartest People In America - The Federalist

We were treated to what at first appeared to be rare mea culpa this week as reporters read the Department of the Interior inspector generals report on the riots and police response in Lafayette Park last summer and appeared shocked to find that the Park Police and Attorney General Bill Barr and even President Donald Trump were telling the truth when they said the crowd was going to be dispersed before police knew the president was thinking of coming down there.

Its rare to see what looks remotely like self-reflection in our self-obsessed corporate media, so it would be nice to nod and smile and move on, but is it an acknowledgement of error or is it even basic self-reflection if the sin isnt addressed all all? As in, if the problem isnt admitted? Because on June 1, 2020 (and what followed), corporate media didnt simply get it wrong, they flagrantly and shamelessly lied to Americans in order to hurt the president.

But first, a quick montage of the coverage.

Not all of these anchors or reporters were in Washington (and a lot of them didnt think it safe to travel in June unless you were going to a protest or a riot or one of George Floyds funerals), but many were in D.C., and all have correspondents in the city. Thats important, because to get in front of the cameras at the White House press briefing, as Jim Acosta did every chance he had, or to pose for the live camera shots on top of the nearby Chamber of Commerce, these reporters and pundits had to walk through the streets and the mob that controlled them.

That means they heard the drumming and the curses and the threats and the screams and the howls of the mob whenever confronted by police or close enough to the White House to vent their rage.

That means they saw the shattered windows and empty businesses and spray painted profanities and revolutionary threats and burned church and smashed cars and trash-strewn streets of the city.

That means they maybe even saw the rioters trying to pull down the beautiful statue of Lafayette, or maybe at least saw the empty and defaced pedestals nearby of those statues the mob successfully claimed.

That means they maybe even dodged the occasional projectiles when bricks and glass bottles and full soda cans and fireworks were thrown into police lines after the sun went down.

And all that means they knew full well what this peaceful protest was about, and they had to walk past its rich, poor, and working-class victims every day they went to get on camera.

That means they heard this, and they saw it, and they chose to lie to you about it.

I know this because Ive lived here in Washington for 17 years now. I work here, Im lucky enough to own a home here, and I care about this city, and my friends, our neighbors, our churches, and our businesses, and the bartenders who served us beer, and John who still walked us to our lunch table long after he could have retired, and the policemen who kept the streets clean then stood there each night under an assault of abuse and a violent barrage of hurled objects.

I love this city, so I walked those streets before and just after the riots and in the months that dragged on afterwards all the way until Donald Trump was defeated and our local businesses could go back to not being afraid of the mob.

I saw the spray paint on the office my friend was proud to buy for his company, and on the restaurants and hotels and coffee shops. I saw the shattered windows and the wooden barricades and the young and old men trying to clean it up with power hoses and sponges. And I saw the elderly couples being walked from their cars to the hotel they were staying in by doormen who knew the peaceful protesters in the park smoking pot and banging on drums and threatening passersby and police werent peaceful at all.

White House reporters knew all of that too.

Little better exemplifies the combination of Washingtons self-obsessed nature with its complete lack of self-reflection like Politico Playbook, which Thursday morning the morning after the IG report that upended a full year of media lies began its newsletter with the must-read of the day.

That story, a Bloomberg story, was called Welcome To The Trump Coast, and was all about the alternate universe and denial of the former presidents life and friends down in Mar-a-Lago.The Playbook excerpt attacked the presidents insular feedback loop, which they said was amplified by his worship of validation from reporters he agreed with, and which doesnt appear to likely to diminish in the coming years.

Only 17 paragraphs (and an advertisement from Google) down did the reader learn anything about that embarrassing Lafayette Park business in the IG report. The report, and the fake acknowledgment, got one paragraph before it was onto CNNs Secret Fight With The Justice Department.

The president may have moved down to Florida, but there is an insular feedback loop in Washington that is indeed amplified by a worship of validation from reporters it agrees with, and which truly doesnt appear likely to diminish in the coming years. For corporate media to see that would take a little self-reflection and a true apology for lying to the entire country.

And it isnt coming.

Photo The riot in Lafayette Park the night before June 1. Screenshot/MSNBC.

Link:

The Federalist The Media Didn't 'Get It Wrong' On Lafayette Park, They Lied To America - The Federalist

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously smacked down the city of Philadelphias attempt to force a Catholic adoption agency to certify same-sex couples as foster parents as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment on Thursday.

Philadelphia originally said in 2018 that it would no longer refer foster children to Catholic Social Services, which has partnered with the citys foster care program for more than 50 years, due to the agencys refusal to recognize same-sex couples. The city said this violated both a non-discrimination provision in the agencys contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance, which only applies if the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.

As noted in the background for the ruling, however, other private foster agencies in Philadelphia will certify same-sex couples, and no same-sex couple has sought certification from CSS.

SCOTUS justices agreed to overturn previous rulings from the district court and the Third Circuit based on this information, saying, the Citys actions burdened CSSs religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs.

The Court recognized that it is not the governments place to exclude religious agenciesbecause of their religious beliefs and the court also recognized that the community is stronger and that more children are being helped when religious agencies are allowed to be part of the solution, Becket Fund senior counsel Lori Windham, who argued on behalf of the CSS, said during a press conference on Thursday.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, noted the citys long relationship with the religious agency and explained why it was wrong for the government to fail to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.

CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else, Roberts wrote. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.

In multiple other concurring opinions, justices debated whether the current cases outcomes warrant more action and a potential reversal of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.

In her concurring opinion supported by Kavanaugh and Breyer, Barrett expressed wariness about reversing Smith, but Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas all said Smith should have been overruled.

Several religious liberty groups celebrated the decision while others called for more action on pending cases.

Every child in need of a forever home deserves the chance to be adopted or cared for by a foster family. Thats what it means to keep kids first, Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. The Supreme Courts decision today allows that to continue happening. The government cant single out people of certain beliefs to punish, sideline, or discriminate against them. Were grateful for the good decision today consistent with that principle. And so now is the perfect time for the high court to address a religious freedom question that has been pending for years in Arlenes Flowers, the case of Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman. She has waited far too long for justice now is her time.

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

Original post:

SCOTUS Smacks Down Philly's Attempt To Blacklist Catholic Adoption Organization Over Gay Marriage Opposition - The Federalist

It doesnt take much courage for an American politician to publicly oppose antisemitism. But only under certain circumstances.

If the person or group that stands guilty of hatred of Jews is a conservative, a Republican, or someone who can be tied to the political right, its open season on them. But if its a Democrat or someone who can hide behind the label person of color or a potential victim of Islamophobia, then she can count on woke mobs on social media, pop culture influencers, and partisanship to not only protect her but to also put any potential accusers in the dock as racists.

Thats why Rep. Ilhan Omar and other members of the left-wing Squad have evaded accountability in the past and whats still protecting them as the results of a recent dustup with party moderates indicated.

After a surge in violent antisemitism inspired in no small part by vicious attacks on Israel by members of their partys left-wing, some Jewish Democrats seemed to have had enough. After Omarcomparedthe United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, the 25 Jewish members of the House of Representatives who are Democrats (two others are Republicans), met informally. Their discussion focused on whether it was time to rebuke Omar by name for her latest effort at demonizing the Jewish state, as well as besmirching the United States.

To their credit, 12 of them did so, signing on to a statement that rightly takes her to task:

Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided. Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits ones intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice.

The United States and Israel are imperfect and, like all democracies, at times deserving of critique, but false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups. We urge Congresswoman Omar to clarify her words placing the U.S. and Israel in the same category as Hamas and the Taliban.

Considering that Omar already traffickedin antisemitic tropes, is anopen supporterof the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and had promoted a narrative about Israels birth on the floor of the House last month that made it clear she thought one Jewish state on the planet was one too many, a call for her to clarify her words was a pathetically weak response. If she were a Republican, theres little doubt that Jewish Democrats would demand that, like former Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, or Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga., Omar should be officially censored and stripped of her committee assignments.

But it was arguably better than nothing. Moreover, by stating that her comment reflects deep-seated prejudice and that such false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups, it correctly identified the stakes in the debate.

Still, the fact that the other 13 Jewish Democrats a majority of the caucus refused to sign is an equally clear indication that even among Jews, support for Israel among Democrats is on the decline.

Omar subsequently issued what she said was aclarification, claiming that her remarks were taken out of context. What she said was part of a series of questions to Secretary of State Antony Blinken about her support for the International Criminal Court.

Omar had thanked the Biden administration for dropping sanctions former President Donald Trump had slapped on those responsible for what he had correctly labeled as antisemitism, while criticizing it for opposing the ICCs attempts to single out both Israel and the United States for committing war crimes during anti-terror operations.

But this is a distinction without a difference. Omars support for the ICCs attempts to criminalize Israels self-defense against Hamas terrorism is just as appalling in context as it is when seen on its own.

What followed was a replay of the last House dustup over Omars antisemitic bombast in 2019. House Democratic leadership led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi did rebuke Omar for her initial statement, but in the same breath also accepted her non-apology, with no thought to throwing her off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the way theyve done to Republicans who make extremist statements. Then Pelosi quickly backpedaled and insisted on CNN that Democrats did not rebuke Omar.

Yet rather than those silent 13 Jewish Democrats being criticized fornotspeaking up against Omar, it was the ones whodidsign the statement that found themselves under attack for supposedly persecuting her.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is made up of nearly half of all House Democrats, issued a statement in support of Omar, who is part of the groups leadership. Jayapal, speaking in the name of all progressives, said those holding Omar to account were part of a bad faith effort to attack a black, Muslim woman, and endangering her and her staff.

Despite her clarification, Omar was far from repentant and labeledthe 12 Jews who dared to call her out as being guilty of Islamicphobic [sic] tropes and subjecting her to constant harassment and silencing.

That was seconded by others on the left, including fellow Squad members Reps.Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who had joined Omar on the House floor to falsely accuse Israel of committing war crimes. A tsunami of abuse on Twitter was also directed at the Jewish 12.

To read the responses to the statement on Omar is to understand why so many Jewish Democrats were reluctant to speak out. In doing so, even in the most restrained fashion, the 12 were widely denounced for demonstrating racism and white privilege, and for allegiance to Israel.

The exchange showed a lot had changed since early 2019, when it was Omar who was put on the defensive, at least for a short while, after claiming that Jews were buying congressional support for Israel (Its all about the Benjamins). Even then, Omar easily escaped being censured by the House and was soon lionized by the left, including pop-culture influencers among the late-night TV comedians like Stephen ColbertandTrevor Noah, as an innocent victim of persecution from Trump.

But after the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and widespread acceptance of its toxic ideological baggage of critical race theory and intersectionality, which falsely labels Israel and the Jews as white and colonialist oppressors of people of color, Omars rants are now viewed part of mainstream discourse. Just as the attacks on Israel for defending itself against Hamas terror from Gaza were far greater this year than they were during the last such fighting in 2014, so, too, Omar and her progressive allies are also on firmer ground in Democratic circles.

Since she and the rest of The Squad landed in Washington three years ago (with more joining the club in January), many believe they have gotten far more attention than they deserve considering their non-existent legislative accomplishments. Still, this episode illustrates just how much influence she and her friends have acquired and the way the Black Lives Matter movement has given a permission slip to antisemitism.

In that short time, Omar and company have done more to establish antisemitic stereotypes and libels in mainstream discourse than extremist right-wingers could have accomplished in decades.

We already knew about the deep divide in the Democratic Party about support for Israel one that is growing wider as a new and more leftist generation bought into intersectional myths. What were seeing now is the price that those in the center of that party will have to pay if they continue to oppose the mainstreaming of antisemitism.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

Original post:

If Ilhan Omar Was A Republican, She'd Be Another Marjorie Taylor Greene - The Federalist

Ladies and gentlemen: The story you are about to see is true, declared the introduction to the classic television program Dragnet. All we want are the facts, maam, asserted police officer Joe Friday during his investigations. True stories; just the facts: it seems so straightforward, doesnt it? Not when American social studies curricula are concerned.

I teach my students that [Thomas] Jefferson sat there and wrote all men are created equal, but he made his money off plantations, said Jocelyn Foshay, a middle school social studies teacher in Dallas, according to a recent Washington Post article. I give the students the facts and let them draw their own conclusions, she said. Thats what learning is. The Post loved Foshays line so much, they featured it again in a June 6 editorial, claiming she was articulating a core principle of pedagogy that should be animating the debate about how history is taught.

Advocates of incorporating critical race theory into curricula argue they are on the side of truth, facts, and history. The Southern Poverty Law Centers grade-school curriculum is explicitly called Teaching Hard History, the implication being that some history, if difficult to learn about, is the hard, cold truth.

History is not rainbows and unicorns, Foshay told the WaPo. But you can look at the twisted and the cruel and still take pride in how far the country has come. Conservative efforts to reject the 1619 Projects curriculum, in turn, are labeled misguided attempts to keep true history from Americas youth.

There are at least two problems here. The first is simply that much of the history offered by the 1619 Project and similar critical race theory initiatives is simply wrong. The second is that what teachers choose to cover with their limited time with students will reveal what biases and agendas that educator has related to history.

As I noted in an earlier Federalist article, professional historians have called the 1619 Project a very unbalanced, one-sided account, wrong in so many ways, not only ahistorical, but actually anti-historical and a tendentious and partial reading of American history. Fact-checkers for the project were ignored and sidelined, which says something about their commitment to factual history.

Scholar Peter W. Wood summarizes some of the more egregious errors in his book 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project:

It is not true that the arrival of slaves on the White Lion was the beginning of chattel slavery in America, where it was widespread before Columbus, or in Virginia, where those slaves may have become indentured servants once debarking in the Chesapeake. It is not true that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery. It is not true that cotton production was the foundation of American wealth in the nineteenth century, or that the plantations were the guiding model and origin of American capitalism. It is not true that Lincoln was a racist hell-bent on sending blacks back to an Africa they had never seen and that could not be considered their home.

The response of 1619 Project authors and advocates to these criticisms has been either to ignore complaints regarding historical accuracy, to accuse such detractors of fear, racism, or bigotry, or to claim that 1619 Project efforts are fake but accurate. That ostensibly means that even if some details are erroneous, the larger project and its significance remain relevant.

Moreover, Forsays reductionist comment denigrating Jefferson for profiting from slavery is so blinkered it borders on absurdity, given that the Virginia polymath was responsible for, among other things, the seminal Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; founding the University of Virginia; abolishing the slave trade while president; and helping establish the Library of Congress. Theres no time to discuss that, however, when youre a teacher who has explicitly stated your plans to focus on teaching students about systemic racism.

As a former high-school history teacher myself, Forshays patently derogatory and prejudicial approach to the Framers leads into the even more salient problem with the 1619 Project and other critical race theory initiatives: that these ideological programs are imbalanced and incomplete. The reason is that when professionals be they grade-school educators or historians claim they are presenting just the objective facts, they are being disingenuous and even manipulative about the broader field of historical study.

Heres why: many, many historical data points can be taught for any given subset of American, European, or global history. For almost any historical topic we seek to understand, there are countless books and endless reams of primary documents or artifacts that can be considered and analyzed.

Thus even if we talk about the history of the American Civil War, we can approach it from the perspective of military, social, cultural, economic, political, religious, sexual, or racial history. I wrote my undergraduate thesis just on the topic of the black religious experience during the Civil War, and I barely scratched the surface of the available data.

In truth, every educator and historian must make critical judgments about what facts he or she will include in books or lesson plans, and how those groups of facts fit into some broader narrative. Even when critical race theory advocates prioritize true historical data, they are often citing what supports their specific pedagogical and ideological agenda, and often ignoring data that does not fit it.

To some extent, this is inevitable, even for the most professional history teachers who aim to be unbiased and fair. Each teacher has an idea of what history means and why its important, and teachers leverage whatever data will substantiate their case.

But what is particularly pernicious is to pretend history educators are not actually involved in this fundamentally subjective pedagogical process, but, as critical race theory activists erroneously claim, replacing earlier historical narratives that were flatly erroneous. What is really going on is not replacing error with truth, but foregrounding some data (typically the experience of persons of color or other marginalized groups) at the expense of others (typically of many white Americans).

Theres not anything essentially wrong with spending more time discussing racial or social history. If done professionally and factually, its still history. But it also means students will get less of other forms of history (typically political, military, religious, or economic), many of which are necessary to understand their nations story as it relates to their duties as citizens.

It also means, in the case of critical race theory, that educators elide an older, traditional way of understanding of America as a remarkable, unprecedented socio-political experiment that brought great good to its citizens and in certain respects changed the world for the better. Instead, America is accused of being systemically racist, even in her founding documents and political ideals.

In their widely lauded book, The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders Worldview, renowned, award-winning historians Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese note:

Today, almost everyone views slavery as an enormity and abolition as a moral and political imperative. Yet as recently as two or three hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of civilized, decent people would not have agreed: Indeed, they would have found such notions surprising.

Indeed, I would imagine students learning under critical race theory curricula will not learn that in 1860, American Indians owned approximately 5,000 black slaves, or that there were black American slaveholders, or even that cannibalism, torture, and human sacrifice was common among American Indian and African peoples. The Genoveses thus continue: the historically appropriate question is: What, after millennia of general acceptance, made Christians and, subsequently, those of other faiths judge slavery as an enormity not to be endured?

The answer to that question is surely complex and multi-faceted. I would however argue that it was something in Christianity itself, and perhaps even something in the documents and beliefs of the founding generation of the American political experiment, that led human opinion to slowly coalesce into agreement about slavery during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Yet to argue such a case would imply there was truly something of unprecedented value in Christian, and perhaps even Western civilization, given that the idea of human rights originated in the West, and has only become accepted across the globe in the last century. To consider such hypotheses would by extension expose the error and hypocrisy of critical race theory proponents, given that certain identitarian victim classes were sometimes the victimizers.

As far as critical race theory is concerned, its never simply just the facts. Often its not even facts at all.

Casey Chalk is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelor's in history and master's in teaching from the University of Virginia and a master's in theology from Christendom College.

Read the rest here:

Why It's Impossible To Teach History Only Using 'The Facts' - The Federalist

Fourteen-year-old Jolene Grover went to a school board meeting wearing a Woman is Female t-shirt to call out her district for prioritizing boys wants over girls needs in its new transgender policies. The eighth-grader joins teachers and parents in fighting Loudoun County, Virginias proposed policies that would allow students to use whichever locker room corresponds with their self-described gender identity rather than their biological sex.

During her speech at a school board meeting, Grover argued the new policies are dangerous and rooted in sexism and could lead to harassment or assault, exclaiming, You do this in the name of inclusivity while ignoring the girls who will pay the price. She further noted the existing harassment and bad behavior by junior high boys, telling the board, Now, boys are reading erotica in the classroom next to girls, and you want to give them access to girls locker rooms.

Two years ago, I was told policy 1040 was just an umbrella philosophy and you werent going to allow boys into the girls locker rooms, Grover said of the proposed change. But here you are doing just that.

Everyone knows what a boy is even you, Grover continued, pushing back against the idea that identity is ever-changing. When woke kids ask me if I was a lesbian or a trans boy because I cut my hair short, it should tell you these modern identities are superficial.

Last year, due to potentially harmful policies considered in the school district, Grovers concerned mother took her out of the Loudoun County public school system and has been homeschooling her. Grover joins many Loudoun County residents standing against the school districts radical proposed policies in the aftermath of gym teacher Tanner Crosss suspension and reinstatement for his stated refusal to lie to students about whether boys can be girls.

Paulina Enck is an intern at the Federalist and current student at Georgetown University in the School of Foreign Service. Follow her on Twitter at @itspaulinaenck

Follow this link:

Loudoun County Eighth-Grade Girl Defends Right Not To Change In Front Of Boys - The Federalist

Sen. Ted Cruz, like any American who has been on an airplane in the past few months, has seen the signs and heard the constant warnings that federal law requires that you wear a mask on flights. And hes had enough.

The last I checked under our constitutional system if federal law requires it then it is appropriate for the United States Congress to make that determination, Cruz said in a congressional hearing. Because the only way something becomes federal law in this country is if Congress passes a law and its signed by the president.

The federal mask mandate on public transportation, which was enacted Feb. 1 and was set to expire May 11, was recently extended until September. Failure to comply can result in fines starting at $250 and increasing up to $1500.

Cruz said he was disheartened by the politicization of the CDC and the deeply troubling emails from Dr. Fauci that too often engaged in politics rather than science. He argued that the CDCs latest guidance that vaccinated people do not need to wear masks should apply to airlines.

Cruz pointed out the hypocrisy of vaccinated government officials not needing to wear masks while federal mandates force vaccinated airline passengers wear them:

Sen. Fisher and I are sitting as close as we would be sitting if we were sitting on an airplane. Were not wearing a mask and indeed not a single senator in this hearing room is wearing a mask; not a single Democrat, not a single Republican is wearing a mask, because shock of all shocks: science actually means something and vaccines work. This mandate right now is hurting the aviation industry because it is depressing demand for commercial aviation.

Cruz said that in a recent 11-hour flight to Israel, flight attendants woke passengers up if their masks fell even slightly below their noses while sleeping.

This is performative theater. This is not science, this is not keeping anyone safe, Cruz said. One way to encourage people to be vaccinated is for their actually to be a difference in what you can do after youve been vaccinated. And I think repealing this requirement and allowing people who have been vaccinated to choose not to wear a mask on an airplane would increase demand, increase travel, and would tie the policy to the science.

Maggie Hroncich is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College.

See the rest here:

Ted Cruz Slams Airline Masking Laws As 'Performative Theater' - The Federalist