Category Archives: Federalist

The term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world. It may also refer to the concept of parties, whose members or supporters called themselves Federalists.[1]

In Europe, proponents of deeper European integration are sometimes called Federalists. A major European NGO and advocacy group campaigning for such a political union is the Union of European Federalists. Movements towards a peacefully unified European state have existed since the 1920s, notably the Paneuropean Union. A pan-European party with representation in the European Parliament fighting for the same cause is Volt Europa.

In the European Parliament the Spinelli Group brings together MEPs from different political groups to work together of ideas and projects of European federalism; taking their name from Italian politician and MEP Altiero Spinelli, who himself was a major proponent of European federalism, also meeting with fellow deputies in the Crocodile Club.

Notable European Federalists are former European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, current EC president Ursula von der Leyen, leader of ALDE group Guy Verhofstadt, German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy of Germany Peter Altmaier, German MEP Elmar Brok and the former leader of the SPD Martin Schulz.

In the Spanish-speaking parts the Latin America the term "federalist" is used in reference to the politics of 19th-century Argentina and Colombia. The Federalists opposed the Unitarians in Argentina and the Centralists in Colombia through the 19th century. Federalists fought for complete self-government and full provincial autonomy, as opposed to the centralized government that the Unitarians and Centralists favored. Furthermore, Federalists demanded tariff protection for their industries and, in Argentina, called for the end of the Buenos Aires customs as the only intermediary for foreign trade. During the Federal War (1859-1863) in Venezuela, liberal caudillos confronted conservatives, leading to the establishment of the modern federal States of Venezuela.

The one Federalist leader in the Platine Region was Jos Gervasio Artigas, who opposed the centralist governments in Buenos Aires that followed the May Revolution, and created instead the Federal League in 1814 among several Argentine Provinces and the Banda Oriental (modern-day Uruguay). In 1819, the Federal armies rejected the centralist Constitution of the United Provinces of South America and defeated the forces of Supreme Director Jos Rondeau at the 1820 Battle of Cepeda, effectively ending the central government and securing Provinces' sovereignty through a series of inter-Provincial pacts (v.g. Treaty of Pilar, Treaty of Benegas, Quadrilateral Treaty). A new National Constitution was proposed only in 1826, during the Presidency of Unitarian Bernardino Rivadavia, but it was again rejected by the Provinces, leading to the dissolution of the National Government the following year.

Federalist Buenos Aires Governor Manuel Dorrego took over the management of the foreign affairs of the United Provinces, but he was deposed and executed in 1828 by Unitarian General Juan Lavalle, who commanded troops dissatisfied with the negotiations that ended the War with Brazil. The following year, Juan Manuel de Rosas, leader of Buenos Aires Federalists, defeated Lavalle and secured his resignation. Rosas was elected Governor of Buenos Aires later that year by the Provincial Legislature. To counteract these developments, the Unitarian League was created by General Jos Mara Paz in 1830, uniting nine Argentine Provinces. The 1831 Federal Pact between Buenos Aires, Entre Ros and Santa Fe Provinces opposed a military alliance to the League and ultimately defeated it during 1832, its former members joining the Federal Pact into a loose confederation of Provinces known as the Argentine Confederation. Although the Unitarians were exiled in neighboring countries, the Civil War continued for two decades.

Buenos Aires Governor Juan Manuel de Rosas exerted a growing hegemony over the rest of the country during his 1835-1852 Government and resisted several Unitarian uprisings, but was finally defeated in 1852 by a coalition Army gathered by Entre Ros Federalist Governor Justo Jos de Urquiza, who accused Rosas of not complying with Federal Pact provisions for a National Constitution. In 1853, a Federal Constitution was enacted (the current Constitution of Argentina, through amendments) and Urquiza was elected President of the Argentine Confederation. However, on the aftermath of 1852 Battle of Caseros, the Province of Buenos Aires had seceded from the Confederation. In 1859, after the Battle of Cepeda the State of Buenos Aires rejoined the Confederation, although it was granted the right to make some amendments to its Constitution. Finally, after the 1861 Battle of Pavn, Buenos Aires took over the Confederation.

The following federal governments fought the weaker Federalist and Autonomist resistances in the countryside until the 1870s. The last Autonomist rebellion in Buenos Aires was quelled in 1880, leading to the federalization of Buenos Aires city and the stabilization of the Argentine State and government through the National Autonomist Party.

Federalism, in regard to the National Question, refers to support for Quebec remaining within Canada, while either keeping the status quo or pursuing greater autonomy and constitutional recognition of a Quebec nation, with corresponding rights and powers for Quebec within the Canadian federation. This ideology is opposed to Quebec sovereigntism, proponents of Quebec independence, most often (but not for all followers) along with an economic union with Canada similar to the European Union.

In the United States the term federalist usually applies to a member of one of the following groups:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and others dedicated to debate of these principles.

The World Federalist Movement is a global citizens movement that advocates for strengthened and democratic world institutions subjected to the federalist principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and democracy. It states that "[w]orld federalists support the creation of democratic global structures accountable to the citizens of the world and call for the division of international authority among separate agencies".

Read more:

Federalist - Wikipedia

1.General IntroductionHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--2.Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and InfluenceJayFor the Independent Journal--3.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and InfluenceJayFor the Independent Journal--4.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and InfluenceJayFor the Independent Journal--5.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and InfluenceJayFor the Independent Journal--6.Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the StatesHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--7.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the StatesHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--8.The Consequences of Hostilities Between the StatesHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, November 20, 17879.The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and InsurrectionHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--10.The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and InsurrectionMadisonFrm the New York PacketFriday, November 27, 178711.The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a NavyHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--12.The Utility of the Union in Respect to RevenueHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, November 27, 178713.Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in GovernmentHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--14.Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory AnsweredMadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, November 30, 178715.The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--16.The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, December 4, 178717.The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--18.The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamilton and MadisonFor the Independent Journal--19.The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamilton and MadisonFor the Independent Journal--20.The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the UnionHamilton and MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, December 11, 178721.Other Defects of the Present ConfederationHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--22.The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present ConfederationHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, December 14, 178723.The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the UnionHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, December 17, 178724.The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further ConsideredHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--25.The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, December 21, 178726.The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense ConsideredHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--27.The Same Subject Continued:The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, December 25, 178728.The Same Subject Continued:The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense ConsideredHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--29.Concerning the MilitiaHamiltonFrom the Daily AdvertiserThursday, January 10, 178830.Concerning the General Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, December 28, 178731.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, January 1, 178832.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the Daily AdvertiserThursday, January 3, 178833.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the Daily AdvertiserThursday, January 3, 178834.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, January 4, 178835.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--36.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of TaxationHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, January 8, 178837.Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of GovernmentMadisonFrom the Daily AdvertiserFriday, January 11, 178838.Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan ExposedMadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, January 15, 178839.Conformity of the Plan to Republican PrinciplesMadisonFor the Independent Journal--40.The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and SustainedMadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, January 18, 178841.General View of the Powers Conferred by the ConstitutionMadisonFor the Independent Journal--42.The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further ConsideredMadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, January 22, 178843.The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further ConsideredMadisonFor the Independent Journal--44.Restrictions on the Authority of the Several StatesMadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, January 25, 178845.The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments ConsideredMadisonFor the Independent Journal--46.The Influence of the State and Federal Governments ComparedMadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, January 29, 178847.The Particular Structure of the New Government and Distribution of Power Among Its Different PartsMadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 1, 178848.These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each OtherMadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 1, 178849.Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a ConventionHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 5, 178850.Periodic Appeals to the People ConsideredHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 5, 178851.The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different DepartmentsHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 8, 178852.The House of RepresentativesHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 8, 178853.The Same Subject Continued: The House of RepresentativesHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 12, 178854.The Apportionment of Members Among StatesHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 12, 178855.The Total Number of the House of RepresentativesHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 15, 178856.The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of RepresentativesHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 19, 178857.The Alleged Tendency of the Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with RepresentationHamilton or MadisonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 19, 178858.Objection that the Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands ConsideredMadison----59.Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of MembersHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, February 22, 178860.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of MembersHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 26, 178861.The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of MembersHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, February 26, 178862.The SenateHamilton or MadisonFor the Independent Journal--63.The Senate ContinuedHamilton or MadisonFor the Independent Journal--64.The Powers of the SenateJayFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 7, 178865.The Powers of the Senate ContinuedHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 7, 178866.Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for ImpeachmentsFurther ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, March 11, 178867.The Executive DepartmentHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, March 11, 178868.The Mode of Electing the PresidentHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 14, 178869.The Real Character of the ExecutiveHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 14, 178870.The Executive Department Further ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 14, 178871.The Duration in Office of the ExecutiveHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, March 18, 178872.The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 21, 178873.The Provision for Support of the Executive, and the Veto PowerHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, March 21, 178874.The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the ExecutiveHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, March 25, 178875.The Treaty Making Power of the ExecutiveHamiltonFor the Independent Journal--76.The Appointing Power of the ExecutiveHamiltonFrom the New York PacketTuesday, April 1, 178877.The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive ConsideredHamiltonFrom the New York PacketFriday, April 4, 178878.The Judiciary DepartmentHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition, New York--79.The Judiciary ContinuedHamiltonFromMcLEAN'sEdition, New York--80.The Powers of the JudiciaryHamiltonFromMcLEAN'sEdition, New York--81.The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of Judicial AuthorityHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition--82.The Judiciary ContinuedHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition--83.The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by JuryHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition--84.Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and AnsweredHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition--85.Concluding RemarksHamiltonFrom McLEAN's Edition--

Read more:

Full Text of The Federalist Papers - Federalist Papers ...

Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist Debate

The American Revolution was a costly war and left the colonies in an economic depression. The debt and remaining tensionsperhaps best summarized by a conflict in Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellionled some founding political members in the U.S. to desire for more concentrated federal power. The thought was that this concentrated power would allow for standardized fiscal and monetary policy and for more consistent conflict management.

However, a more nationalistic identity was the antithesis of some founding political members' ideals for the developing states. A more centralized American power seemed reminiscent of the monarchical power of the English crown that had so recently and controversially been defeated. The potential consequences of centralized fiscal and monetary policy were especially frightening for some, reminding them of burdensome and unfair taxation. Anti-federalists were closely tied to rural landowners and farmers who were conservative and staunchly independent.

The most important parts of this debate were decided in the 1700s and 1800s in U.S. history, and the Federalist Party dissolved centuries ago, but the battles between federalist and anti-federalist ideologies continue into the present day in left and right wing American politics. To better understand the history behind this ongoing ideological debate, watch the following video from author John Green's U.S. history Crash Course series.

Prior to the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, a 13-articled agreement between the 13 founding states that covered issues of state sovereignty, (theoretical) equal treatment of citizenry, congressional development and delegation, international diplomacy, armed forces, fund raising, supermajority lawmaking, the U.S.-Canadian relationship, and war debt.

The Articles of Confederation was a very weak agreement on which to base a nationso weak, in fact, that the document never once refers to the United States of America as being part of a national government, but rather "a firm league of friendship" between states. This is where the concept of the "United States"i.e., a group of roughly and ideologically united, individually ruling bodiescomes from in the naming of the country. The Articles of Confederation took years for the 13 states to ratify, with Virginia being the first to do so in 1777 and Maryland being the last in 1781.

With the Articles of Confederation, Congress became the only form of federal government, but it was crippled by the fact that it could not fund any of the resolutions it passed. While it could print money, there was no solid regulation of this money, which led to swift and deep depreciation. When Congress agreed to a certain rule, it was primarily up to the states to individually agree to fund it, something they were not required to do. Though Congress asked for millions of dollars in the 1780s, they received less than 1.5 million over the course of three years, from 1781 to 1784.

This inefficient and ineffective governance led to economic woes and eventual, if small scale, rebellion. As George Washington's chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton saw firsthand the problems caused by a weak federal government, particularly those which stemmed from a lack of centralized fiscal and monetary policies. With Washington's approval, Hamilton assembled a group of nationalists at the 1786 Annapolis Convention (also known as the "Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government"). Here, delegates from several states wrote a report on the conditions of the federal government and how it needed to be expanded if it was to survive its domestic turmoil and international threats as a sovereign nation.

In 1788, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, greatly expanding the powers of the federal government. With its current 27 amendments, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the United States of America, allowing it to define, protect, and tax its citizenry. Its development and relatively quick ratification was perhaps just as much the result of widespread dissatisfaction with a weak federal government as it was support for the constitutional document.

Federalists, those who identified with federalism as part of a movement, were the main supporters of the Constitution. They were aided by a federalist sentiment that had gained traction across many factions, uniting political figures. This does not mean there was no heated debate over the Constitution's drafting, however. The most zealous anti-federalists, loosely headed by Thomas Jefferson, fought against the Constitution's ratification, particularly those amendments which gave the federal government fiscal and monetary powers.

A sort of ideological war raged between the two factions, resulting in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by various figuressome anonymously, some notfor and against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Ultimately, anti-federalists greatly influenced the document, pushing for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. The Bill of Rights, the term used for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, are especially about personal, individual rights and freedoms; these were included partly to satisfy anti-federalists.

Among anti-federalists, some of the most prominent figures were Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Jefferson was often considered a leader among the anti-federalists. Other prominent anti-federalists included Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.

Alexander Hamilton, a former chief of staff to George Washington, was a proponent of a strong federal government and founded the Federalist Party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a taxation system. Other prominent federalists of the time included John Jay and John Adams.

Other figures, such as James Madison, greatly supported Hamilton's federalist intentions for a constitution and national identity, but disagreed with his fiscal policies and were more likely to side with anti-federalists on matters of money. Without Madison's influence, which included acceptance of anti-federalists' desire for a bill of rights, it is unlikely that the U.S. Constitution would have been ratified.

See the original post here:

Anti-Federalist vs Federalist - Difference and Comparison ...

Former secretary of state and 2004 failed presidential candidate John Kerry got away with taking off his mask on an American Airlines flight on Wednesday. The Tennessee Star obtained and posted a photo of Kerry, who is now President Bidens climate envoy, and noted he was neither eating or drinking at the time.

In response to Kerry claiming on Twitter that if he dropped his mask it was momentary, a fellow passenger told Fox News that Kerrys mask was off for five minutes. After Twitter users called on American Airlines to respond, the airline said it was looking into the situation.

There are problems with a culture in which its normal to publicly shame people for dropping their masks. But the fact that Kerry was allowed to fly while airlines have kicked off toddlers for the same behavior, including autistic children with medical mask exemptions, exposes the performative hypocrisy of the mask-police industry.

American Airlines policy threatens to remove maskless passengers and possibly bar them from future travel, as do most other airlines, including United, JetBlue, and Spirit.But while American Airlines neglected to enforce these policies against Bidens special climate envoy, American and other airlines have employed them to kick these families off of their flights.

Carter Kimball is a 4-year-old boy with nonverbal autism. When he and his parents boarded their Spirit Airlines flight out of Las Vegas on Monday, they brought a doctors exemption showing that Carter need not wear a mask because of his medical condition.

The airline kicked the Kimball family off of their flight anyway, even though the family says wearing a mask makes Carter harm himself or hold his breath. After receiving backlash, Spirit has promised to add room for medical exemptions to its mask policy.

Cebastian Lewis is 3 years old and autistic. Back in September, he and his family attempted to board a Spirit Airlines flight to Chicago. Cebastian kept his mask on as he boarded but then removed it while in his seat.

After the airline asked his family to get off the aircraft and they refused, the airline made everyone on the aircraft deplane. The airline also called the police, according to Lewis mother, Zana Shelton.

Two-year-old Makenna and her family were traveling from Michigan to their Florida home in December, when American Airlines kicked them off their flight.

Theyre kicking us off and making everybody deplane because Makenna wont keep her mask on, Makennas mother, Briana, said in a video recording she took of the incident. Her daughter was eating during the time she had removed her mask, Leshinsky added, but the airline still brought a federal air marshal onboard to confront them before forcing them off the flight.

JetBlue kicked Chaya Bruck and her six kids off their flight from Florida to New Jersey in August, after her 2-year-old daughter Dina wouldnt wear a mask.

The flight crew came over to me and told me my daughter was 3 years old, Chaya Bruck said. I told them shes 2. JetBlue policy currently requires passengers 2 years old and older to wear masks, but Bruck insisted that the website at the time said children who are not able to maintain a face covering are exempt from the requirement.

After other passengers on the plane took up for Bruck and her children, all passengers were forced to deplane. There is zero tolerance, a flight attendant can be heard saying in a video from the incident.

Eliz and Erhard Orban were kicked off a United Airlines flight from Denver to New Jersey in December when their 2-year-old daughter Edeline refused to keep her mask on. Were banned from United forever because a 2-year-old would not put on a mask, Eliz said in a video of the incident she posted to Instagram.

Were over here holding this mask on her face, Erhard told the flight attendant in the video. A few minutes later, after kicking the family off of the flight, an airline representative can be heard telling the family theres a no-tolerance policy.

The family told Fox News later that Twitter posted a sensitive content warning on the video, and Instagram threatened to delete Orbans account.

American Airlines removed Lyon, his mother Rachel Starr Davis, and his grandmother from their flight after the 2-year-old wouldnt wear his mask in September. Im shaking holding this piece of cloth to my sons face so that we can take off, Davis said.

American forced everyone to deplane then refused to let the Davis family reboard. Another passenger who had tried to help Lyon put a mask on was also kept from getting back on the flight, according to Davis.

Two-year-old Hayes and his mother, Jodi Degyansky, were on a Southwest Airlines flight to Chicago when he took his mask off to eat a snack, according to Degyansky. The airline staff insisted the toddler put his mask back on. Even though Dgyansky was then able to put her sons mask back on, she said, the plane returned to the gate so staff could escort them off the flight.

In a photo posted by MSN, Hayes has a pacifier in his mouth as hes held by his mother in an airplane seat.

Southwest Airlines booted five-year-old Ava Breiterman, who is autistic, and her mother Kelly off their flight in September. Even though Ava had a doctors note exempting her from wearing a mask, Southwest forced them off the plane, sending their bags on without them.

I was trying to get her to put her mask back on, she wouldnt, Breiterman said. The manager came back in and said, Sorry maam, were going to have to deboard you.'

Safwan Choudhry, his wife, and daughters Zupda and Zara were forced off their WestJet flight in Canada after the airline called the police. Choudhry said the family was kicked off because Zara, who was 19 months, wasnt wearing a mask. WestJet said it was because of three-year-old Zupda.

It started with my toddler and once we got a mask on her, they turned to my 19-month-old infant and said every person on the plane has to wear a mask or the plane cant take off,' Choudhry said.

After police confronted the family and the family did not leave the aircraft, the entire flight was canceled.

Alyssa Sadler was flying with her 3-year-old autistic son from Midland, Texas to Houston when Southwest Airlines booted them from their flight. He was screaming, Sadler said, adding that the plane had left the gate but turned around once the crew discovered that her son wouldnt wear his mask.

Sadler said she had a doctors note about her sons autism, but the airline still kicked her, her son, and her 1-year-old daughter off the flight.

Frontier Airlines kicked a family of Hasidic Jews off a flight in February, eventually canceling the entire flight. The family says it was because their 18-month-old baby was unmasked. Frontier Airlines claims other members of the family were also refusing to wear masks, but video of the incident shows only the baby without a face covering.

One woman said she saw airline staff high-fiving after the incident, and thought she heard them say we did it.

If an airline is going to have a zero tolerance policy for maskless babies, then theres no excuse for giving Bidens buddy John Kerry a pass.

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

See the original post here:

John Kerry Can Take Off His Mask In A Plane, But Not These 12 Toddlers - The Federalist

Bill Maher made an interesting point on his show last Friday, arguing that Americas obsession with political correctness is crippling its institutions, leaving the country hobbled in the geopolitical race with China. Thats an accurate assessment, one that also tasks the defenders of cultural sanity with resisting wokeness while not getting bogged down by trivialities at the cost of basic efficiency.

Thats an impossible balance to strike. Despite the lefts false but emergent narrative that conservatives are foolishly and disproportionately obsessed with the culture war, Id contend the response is largely proportionate. That isnt to say flashpoints like the fight over Dr. Seuss are never milked or depicted inaccurately by some. Of course they are.

But its clear that ignoring and conceding perceivably small battles like, for instance, six Dr. Seuss books or Mr. Potato Headis what empowers the lefts culture warriors to take control of everything. By dismissing flare-ups of insanity on college campuses or in the legacy media, leftists normalized their radical new standards before the public even saw it coming. Its like the metaphor of the boiling frog. Death by a thousand cuts.

Standards are set in the small dust-ups. The legacy press covers them from the left, then corporations and government institutions respond to the pressure, sometimes convinced the cost-benefit analysis suggests its easier to roll over. But rolling over sets the standards, and the standards are unjust.

But those standards are also now the ones by which were forced to live, lest we face social and professional consequences for alleged bigotry. Bear in mind that workers without the financial means of a canceled celebrity or journalist are hurt most by those rigid strictures of cancel culture, forced to violate their consciences or suffer financial consequences for perceived transgressions.

Whats sad is that the glass was always half full. Before the acceleration of cancel culture, wed spilled so much blood, sweat, and tears creating a system of equality under the law. Disparities, of course, remained. Equality under the law did not always ensure equality in practice. But measures like the Equality Act, which would create discrimination against women and people of faith, are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Women, for instance, worked hard to win victories like Title IX that will be undercut by the very bill being sold in the name of womens equality.

I often think back to Dolly Partons Dixie Stampede. Now known simply as Dolly Partons Stampede, the Medieval Times-like attraction was once advertised as an extraordinary dinner show pitting North against South in a friendly and fun rivalry. After a viral Slate article questioned the wisdom of that framing, the show removed all references to the Civil War, including Dixie from its name. That was the right call. Its probably for the best that a tourist attraction no longer treats a conflict that involved human bondage as a kitschy gimmick. The Confederate flag probably shouldnt have been flown at the South Carolina statehouse.

These are just some examples of the bathwater that needs to be thrown out. There are certainly more. To deny their existence would be foolish nobody should have a blanket opposition to cancellation as a concept. The right has learned not to treat political dissenters like The Dixie Chicks while the left has decided to treat everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky (including Noam Chomsky!) exactly like The Dixie Chicks.

Therein lies the problem, which is one of proportionality. This is not a perfect country. We still have work to do. But the lefts wildly disproportionate attacks on our culture have necessitated a strong defense of it, which means conservatives and others must spend adequate time pushing back, even when the target is deeply stupid and seemingly trivial.

This brings us back to Bill Maher. You know who doesnt care that theres a stereotype of a Chinese man in a Dr. Seuss book? China, he said last Friday. But the left cares very much. Its another opportunity for performative outrage, which fuels the media business and another opportunity to construct the facile illusion of an irredeemably bigoted country in need of total scrubbing. Its hardly the end of the world, but ceding the lefts argument that several Dr. Seuss books are so racist they should no longer be printed sets a standard.

Weve clearly learned its dangerous to keep ceding those arguments because they rapidly amount to a total cultural takeover that renders the values ungirding our shared consensus no longer really a consensus: basic values that were uncontroversial everywhere except the kookiest corners of academia just 10 years ago, like free expression, the Constitution, religious freedom, equality. The cultural left is deliberately and openly engaged in a scorched-earth campaign to replace those basic values with their own.

Sadly that means we must fight these battles as they arise. Its not a good thing. Nor is it pleasant to think of all the time, money, and other resources our institutions waste on layers of bureaucracy added to protect from and appease the radical ideological minority that has seized control over the culture. When it comes to fighting this cultural revolution, were damned if we do but especially damned if we dont.

Read the original post:

The Culture War Is A Dangerous Distraction That Warrants Total Resistance - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist, RealClearInvestigations reporter John Murawski joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to outline progressive activists battle to create a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum that forces teachings about systemic racism, predatory capitalism, heteropatriarchy, and other structures of oppression on 1.7 million high schoolers in California. President Joe Bidens new education secretary may try to implement it federally as well.

Their hope is that he will take up the ethnic studies cause and will use the power of the federal government, the federal muscle by the federal government to advance ethnic studies in some way to make it a national, to raise the profile of ethnic studies, Murawski said.

He compared the scenario to the transgender bathroom issue that said the government, can withdraw federal funding for schools if they dont cooperate with certain federal policies.

Some of the people involved in the curriculums creation and evaluation, Murawski said, are openly sympathetic to Marxism and treat the ideology behind the literature as a utopian exuberance.

Ethnic studies is very similar to critical race theory. In some ways, I cant tell the difference between ethnic studies and critical race theory, Murawski said. They are very similar, very much focused on the ubiquity of racism, the prominence of racism, white supremacy, systemic racism, and oppression as being inherent to the American experiment.

Read more of Murawskis reporting here.

Listen here:

See the original post:

California Progressives Are About To Implement A Radical And Sweeping Social Justice Curriculum - The Federalist

Defund sanctuary cities. Defund Planned Parenthood. Build the wall. These are just some of things Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promises to do when he takes back control of the Senate that is, if Democrats dare to strike down the filibuster.

Its a great to-do list, the kind of things the conservative base elects Republicans every few years to do. When President Donald Trump took office in 2017 and the GOP controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, though, none of it happened. Why not?

Its true that although Democrats had already begun loudly promising to do away with the filibuster (a parliamentary tactic to protect the minority that the left, of course, calls racist), it was still in place during those Republican majorities. But McConnell didnt even really try to accomplish any of the above. He didnt even make a stink about it. While the House, a majority-ruled chamber, passed a litany of conservative legislation, McConnell barely sniffed, leaving acts to languish with neither fight nor even feint.

Take legislation to defund sanctuary cities cities that have decided to shield violent and criminal illegal immigrants from deportation. The House passed the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act in June 2017, with even then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan going to bat for it. So what did McConnell do? He didnt do anything.

Now, in the Senate, you need 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor without risking that old filibuster, where opposing senators are allowed to debate an issue for as long as they can stand. Every Democratic senator coming twice to the floor to rail against the terrible GOP would be a tough thing to overcome, right?

Pulling the grand 2017 filibuster off, however, would have been a little more difficult than it sounds. To start, Democrats would have had to tackle the simple logistics of the matter: McConnells 115th Senate was literally the oldest in American history. The average average age was nearly 62, with twice as many octogenarians as there had ever been before in Senate history. Which among them would be filibustering? How many of the 75-year-olds would stand for 12 or more hours?

Sure, but that still left a few young bucks. And whether youre Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. Elizabeth She Persisted Warren, Senate shenanigans have a habit of creating folk heroes. But remember what Democrats would have been fighting against here: a bill to literally protect American citizens from violent criminals who should not even be in this country at all. How would that play during the hours or days or even weeks of a concentrated filibuster effort? Who was willing to stand and rail against it? New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, sure. Californias Kamala Harris, who was then still a senator, wouldnt have missed the party. But was West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin going to come down to fight on this one? No. No, he was not.

And do you know who wouldnt have minded whether or not Manchin, for example, stayed upstairs during that fight? The next West Virginian thinking about challenging the septuagenarian politician for his seat. Booker and Harris, he knows, will give him all the material he needs for a few good TV ads.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, defunding cities that have abandoned their most vulnerable citizens in favor of illegal criminals was just too much heat for Republicans. How about Kates Law, the bill named for Kate Steinle, a beautiful 32-year-old woman gunned down in broad daylight as she walked with her father along a pier in California. Her killer, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, had been deported five times before he killed Kate.

Putting aside weak-kneed House Republicans who, before passing it, stripped the law of its teeth mandatory minimum sentencing for those deported criminals who return McConnell didnt even bring it up for a vote. Why not? Seriously, Republicans: Explain with a straight face how all the Senates young progressive up-and-comers benefit nationally from filibustering Kate Steinle.

The right loves to complain that the left is able to pass its agenda by telling real human stories and using emotion while the right struggles to fit all its statistics onto a bumper sticker, but what about this one? Do you know what you get when Harris comes down to filibuster Kates Law? In all chances, you get no Vice President Harris.

And yes, yes, these fights would take time; time away from judges, from tax reform important initiatives, even if they do repeatedly seem to help corporations more often than the middle- and working-class voters who elect Republicans. But when McConnell cares about something actually cares about it we see how quickly his tune changes.

Mitch McConnell, for example, cares about war in the Middle East. He really, really likes it. So at the top of 2019, when Democrats filibustered his Strengthening Americas Security in the Middle East Act, he came down on them like a Baghdad sandstorm. And then, when it took 24 days and four cloture votes to ram it down Democrats throats, he even gave a speech bragging about the fight. It was a fight he wanted.

There are only two rules in the U.S. Senate exhaustion and unanimous consent, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott once observed. And the second only applies when the first has been reached.

Which brings us to the real reason we dont see defunding for sanctuary cities, broadsides on the abortion machine, or a finished wall: The majority of senior Republicans dont care about those issues, dont want to fight on those issues, and as soon as election-time is over, would prefer to see them in the rear-view mirror. Those fights spook the Chamber of Commerce. Lockheed doesnt benefit from them.

There are some issues the wall, probably, and abortion where Democrats will fight with everything theyve got. Theyll wear pink sneakers, raise money, invoke Christian civil rights leaders who likely wouldnt have anything to do with their cause, stage cry-ins. They will be hard fights. Then again, even the Democrats seem to be learning a few of those fights are major losers for them. Now lets see if the Republicans ever realize the issues they win on are winners after theyre elected.

See the rest here:

The Filibuster Was Never The Real Reason McConnell Ignored Conservatives - The Federalist

Make no mistake, the journalists at Teen Vogue will soon be in charge of every legacy newsroom. The shortsighted media establishment haplessly fueled its own destruction and theres little recourse.

This week, Alexi McCammond lost her job as editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue because the outlets staff couldnt get over tweets she sent as a teenager which, as the New York Times put it, included comments on the appearance of Asian features, derogatory stereotypes about Asians and slurs for gay people. McCammond apologized for the tweets in 2019 and went on to cover the 2020 election for Axios, earning acclaim from her peers.

After Teen Vogue announced her hiring, staff made hay over the old tweets, forcing McCammond to issue more apologies before the situation ultimately became untenable on Wednesday. This is obviously crazy to everyone who hasnt drank the Kool-Aid, which is a rapidly decreasing proportion of the adult population, thanks in no small part to the journalists who normalized these absurd standards. As such, McCammonds peers in the press leaped to her defense, condemning the successful efforts to oust her.

Its too little, too late. The legacy media fueled the rise of cancel culture, indulging the far lefts bizarre and radical scorched-earth arguments for years through their coverage and their own personnel decisions. They mocked conservatives who sounded the alarm about college campuses. They continue to insist the right is disproportionately obsessed with the culture war, even as it consumes their institutions.

This is a problem that will get significantly worse until the left is forced to pay an intense price for using their corporate heft to impose the rules of cancel culture on the public. That means the people ignoring or cheering unjust retribution against the right will need to grow up and defend the principle of free expression, whether or not its politically convenient.

Just earlier today I wrote about why these small battles are worth fighting. When institutions like Conde Nast hold the line, it prevents the far left from setting standards that unjustly govern our culture. Those unjust standards leave our institutions distracted and weakened and leave our people needlessly divided and paranoid. This is a good example but the point is that its one of many.

Look no further than the leaks from Politicos staff meeting after the outlet let Ben Shapiro guest author Playbook for literally one day. Read Donald McNeils account of how he was pushed out of the New York Times for repeating a slur in the context of a conversation about it. Revisit the Grey Ladys leaks about Bari Weiss, or the downfall of Sue Schafer at The Washington Post, The Atlantics internalfreakout over Kevin Williamson. This isnt happening at Slate. Its happening at the worlds premiere objective news institutions, the publics biggest access points into world affairs. And theyre utterly broken.

Lets not forget that McCammond was hired at Teen Vogue after news broke that shed been dating a top staffer for Joe Biden while still covering him. That, of course, was fine with them. The 10-year-old tweets on the other hand? Unacceptable.

Teen Vogue just cut a promising young center-left journalist loose for tweets she sent as a kid, that clearly dont represent her adult worldview, and that she apologized for. Its ridiculous and telling that even a big slice of the corporate media agrees and is publicly saying so despite saying silent in other cases.

Not only did they heavily contribute to the creation of this problem, they mocked and ignored the people trying to prevent it. They will also be the casualties, which is exactly what conservatives warned would happen.

Theres no good reason for the right to take a victory lap. Whats happened to our culture is far too sad to warrant any celebration.

View post:

Merciless Teen Vogue Staffers Are Not An Outlier, They're The Future Of Newsrooms - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Western Correspondent Tristan Justice and Executive Editor Joy Pullmann join Staff Writer Jordan Davidson. They break down how governors who were once celebrated for their draconian lockdowns and strict pandemic responses are now facing the consequences of infringing on the rights of their constituents.

A year ago, there were a lot of rising stars in Democratic Party who were really making a name for themselves with this pandemic. They were becoming lockdown liberal heroes whereas all the Republican governors who were refusing the one-size-fits-all approach and allowing their states to be free and embrace a policy of personal responsibility without shutting down their state were endlessly vilified in the press, Justice explained.

Now that multiple governors including Andrew Cuomo, Gretchen Whitmer, and Gavin Newsom face investigations, potential impeachment, and even a recall, Justice and Pullmann agree the corporate medias bashing of Republican leaders such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for keeping their states open and encouraging of Americans to cede their rights to hypocritical politicians was not the correct pandemic response.

Natural rights are not something that you get when youre comfortable and happy, Pullman explained. Thats the reason that they had to be secured in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is because in times of panic and terror and tyranny and weakness, they are going to be among the first things that go Once theyre gone they can never be regained.

The American population has become so apathetic to our individual libertiesand that should be really concerning to a lot of Americans who really care about the United States beingthe last country on earth to really provide as many freedoms as we do, Justice agreed.

Listen here:

Continue reading here:

Once Pandemic Heroes, Democratic Governors Are Now Tyrannical Villains - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Senior Editor Christopher Bedford and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky discuss how two weeks to slow the spread turned into a year of tyrannical lockdowns and fearmongering by hypocritical elites that infringe on American freedoms.

Before we knew what this was, it did make sense to react as, you know, many cities did. It was just that those restrictions lingered beyond after we started to learn more about COVID, Jashinsky said.

Even when more information about COVID-19 emerged, draconian lockdowns, bureaucratic overreach, and extensive regulation continued, Bedford noted.

There are a lot of stories of personal tragedies that occurred because of absolutely insane bureaucratic overreach and people who had no sympathy and no humanity in them and they just worship at the altar of the system and Fauci, Bedford said. Every single one of our centers of power, elite power are completely opposed to America, completely opposed to religion, completely opposed to any traditional idea of sort of society, opposed to our founding, and opposed to our freedoms.

Although some parts of America remain open and free Bedford noted, losing every single power center, all of the commanding heights of corporations and sports, as weve seen in the last week on the military, shows just how screwed we are. Were in trouble.

Read Bedfords article Celebrating One Year Of Rebellion Against Dr. Fauci And The Governments Arbitrary Tyranny here.

Listen to the podcast here:

Continue reading here:

How A Year-Long Pandemic Changed The Country Forever - The Federalist