Category Archives: Federalist

Listen to conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh break down Federalist Publisher Ben Domenechs article The Consequences Of The Capitol Assault on his Friday show.

What will happen next is obvious, Domenech wrote in the piece published Thursday on Wednesdays riots.

A total crushing, anti-free speech effort that treats Trump-supporting groups like Branch Davidians. An effort to restore the fundamentally unserious neocons as the voice of reason in the room. A hardening of the bounds of the Peoples House to keep people away from politicians. A use of any levers of government power including audits, regulation, and lawfare to harass conservatives now categorized as seditionists and terrorists by the incoming president who falsely claims to want to unite the country. And above all, a doubling down on all the policies and efforts put in place to crush exactly the type of people who showed up at the Capitol yesterday in a foolish, desperate attempt to make themselves heard.

The rioters failed in their effort and ensured their marginalization. But marginalization doesnt mean evaporation. Theyre still here. Theyre still Americans. And theyre not going away. How our politicians handle that will dictate a lot about the next several years. And that shouldnt give people a lot of hope, considering that four years after his election and two weeks before his departure, the only person theyll apparently listen to is still Donald Trump.

Part one:

Part two:

Read the rest here:

Listen To Rush Limbaugh On The Federalist's Capitol Hill Coverage - The Federalist

WASHINGTON D.C. As protesters marched from the presidents speech to the Capitol on Wednesday, making the scenic journey down Constitution Avenue, I met a mild-mannered woman from the same small corner of Wisconsin in which I grew up. Shed never voted before Donald Trump ran for president. She traveled to the capital because she loves the president.

Not long after our conversation, hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. They climbed the walls, pushed past police, and roamed the halls, destroying property and taking selfies. A 14-year Air Force veteran did not leave the building alive. It was a disgraceful sight.

There are those who believe Antifa showed up to incite chaos. Its possible such an attempt was made, but even if it was, there is simply no way around the fact that hundreds of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol.

Thousands more chose not to participate, leaving early or watching from a distance.From my vantage point on the east side of the Capitol, I saw genuine Trump supporters rushing up a staircase by the dozens, until the crowd was too dense to move. I saw a few urinate on trees just outside the building, barely shielded from women in the crowd.

I saw them climbing up the wall. Some chanted Whose house? Our house. Some chanted, Do your job! Antifa may have mixed into the fray, but to accurately diagnose this deep wound, its important to be crystal clear that Trump supporters rioted. Indeed, many were proud to do it. If youd rather not take my word for it, there is incontrovertible video evidence.

Ive been out talking to the protesters who busted into the Capitol, Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechiotweeted. One thing Im hearing: They believed they had a right to be in a public building and did not expect cops to block their access (some were allowed in!) A subset of this group, they said, got out of control.

And so the blame game rages on. Rioting is the fault of rioters. But they had just been told by the president that a landslide election was being stolen from him.

Many people trust Donald Trump. They have been lied to by the media for years. They have been smeared as racists by elites and peers alike. With no other sources to turn to, they turn to the man who seems to hear them. He took advantage of that to lessen the blow of a narrow reelection loss.

Love him or hate him, it turns out Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was right last week when he argued [t]he president and his allies are playing with fire. No senator believes Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden in a landslide. Many do, however, believe (and with good reason) that election irregularities occurred on a wider-than-acceptable scale.

The people I spoke to today, most of whom were at a total loss for who to trust in the media, believe the president. He told them a landslide win was being stolen. That would be a crisis. They acted as such. What did he expect?

For years now, Republicans have been pressed daily to strike a delicate balance, ignoring bad tweets to maintain a working relationship with a president beloved by many of their constituents. They had a reasonable argument for doing that. It pushed them to be more responsive to disenfranchised working-class voters. It gave them a seat at the table. But in the waning days of Trumps tenure, one of the worst-case scenarios of a loose-lipped president came to pass.

Some lawmakers and pundits will use it as an excuse to be more openly critical. Reasonable Conservatives will trip over themselves to prove their reasonableness. Some will continue with their fealty and others will pretend they never did.

This is not vindication for the pundits who warned repeatedly Trumps rhetoric was dangerous. Far from it. First, many conservatives who support his policy agenda abhor his rhetoric and say as much. Some downplay it to avoid making negotiations impossible.

But more than anything, its not vindication because such pundits harbor contempt for many of their decent, patriotic neighbors. They also excuse similar behavior on the left time and again. That, of course, does not vindicate anyone who stormed or cheered the storming of the Capitol either.

Our elites are corrupt. The political establishment is not serving us well. These wounds will not be healed by sanctimonious Instagram posts, cable news monologues, egghead Twitter threads, or lofty speeches on the Senate floor, applauded by Beltway journalists who just pocketed $2,000 bonuses and rarely worry about feeding their families.

In a sense, Wednesday will end in the same way it started, under a president known to be a flawed messenger for a deeply upset constituency.

The woman from Wisconsin who was kind enough to share her thoughts with me as she marched through the city volunteered that even she, a Trump diehard who traveled across the country for a midweek rally, wasnt always happy with everything he said. But like everyone else with whom I spoke, she eagerly insisted she would follow Trump straight into a third party.

It is the fault of the political class that Trumpor Bernie Sandersfeel like the only viable solutions to so many Americans. The Capitol riot will hurt the people who were already hurting most, the decent rally goers at a loss for answers, continually ignored and smeared, saddled with the baggage of violence they did not commit.

As the Capitol devolved into chaos, I overheard a protester walking away from the scene, down the hill on the east side Union Station, mutter about the political establishment to his friend. Its like theyre playing a game, he sighed, and everyone has a role to play but us.

Excerpt from:

The Capitol Riot Will Hurt The People Who Were Already Hurting Most - The Federalist

As expected, the left now insists conservatives who lashed out at Wednesdays rioters are nothing more than greedy cynics. One writer for The Guardian fingered those conservatives who are allegedly not content to go down with the Trumpist ship, and who must tack into shifting political winds.

Since he personally implicated me in the grift, Im inclined to respond. Heres what Jason Wilson had to say:

Filing from the scene, the Federalists Emily Jashinsky admitted the riot was a disgraceful sight and dismissed the conspiracy-minded idea that antifa provocateurs were responsible. She laid blame on Trump for inciting them, writing: He told them a landslide win was being stolen. That would be a crisis. They acted as such. What did he expect?

But she then moved to coddle his coalition, arguing that the riot will hurt the people who were already hurting most, mentioning the decent Americans who have been lied to by the media for years smeared as racists by elites and peers alike.

There was no mention in her article or in any of the other lachrymose evocations of Trumps forgotten people that political scientists have repeatedly shown that racial resentment and hostile sexism are the strongest motivations for supporting Trump.

In other words, Donald Trump supporters are indeed racists and sexists, according to Wilson.

There is but one reason Wilsons attack warrants a rebuttal, and it has nothing to do with the purported prestige of his publication. Wilsons central complaint with my work is its failure to accept the premise that Trump supporters are mostly animated by bigotry. What makes such a claim worth rebutting is that its one of the false accusations driving support for Trump, and one of the very reasons some of his supporters lashed out with a sickening assault on our capitol.

Long before Trump came along, elites were smearing decent people as bigots for the crime of disagreeing with leftist orthodoxy. The fury has been simmering for years. Of course, some segment of Trumps base is legitimately racist and sexist, and some number of those racists and sexists were likely among yesterdays rioters.

Nevertheless, political scientists informing Wilsons contention thatracial resentment and hostile sexism are the strongest motivations for supporting Trump would be wrong. But neither of the academic studies to which Wilson linked actually prove his claim, namely the strongest part of it.

One of the papers clearly concedes the limits of its own conclusion, noting, First, our study merely establishes that going from white to black racial cues produces fundamentally distinct reactions among Trump supporters and opponents in their support for government housing assistance, anger about said assistance, and blaming individuals for their struggles. However, it cannot determine whether Trump supporters and opponents are differentially reacting primarily to the white or black racial-cue condition (or both).

The authors of that study ultimately concluded theirresults continue to show that feelings about Donald Trump directly capture a distinct and highly salient expression of differences between racial liberals and conservatives, as indicated by their polarized response to our subtle experimental manipulation of race. Even if you accept the validity of their experiment as a response to the question at hand, that conclusion does not indicate thatracial resentment and hostile sexism are the strongest motivations for supporting Trump.

Similarly, heres a chunk from the other studys conclusion (emphasis added):

Women who supported Trump, for example, were more Republican than those who did not. However, and more important, they held sexist and racially resentful attitudes more similar to males supporting Trump than to their female counterparts supporting other candidates. These attitudes reflect trepidation toward the loss of traditional American family values, including the preservation of separate spheres for men and women. They also suggest that many women fear how outsider groups may be altering the political landscape, an attitude that observers attribute primarily to angry white men.

That study did indeed conclude:

Controlling for the influence of other factors, possessing the levels of sexism and racism for the typical female Trump voter increased the probability that a woman would vote for him by 37 percentage points, when compared to women with sexism and racism scores typical of a non- Trump female voter. By comparison, being a female Republican increased the probability that a woman voted for Trump by 29 points.

But note how the authors define sexist and racially resentful attitudes as trepidation toward the loss of traditional American family values, including the preservation of separate spheres for men and women and a fear of how outsider groups may be altering the political landscape. That overly broad definition of sexism and racial resentment was also at play in the scales the authors used to measure both, particularly sexism.

The strongest motivation for most Trump supporters is not racial resentment or sexism, nor is the large group of voters who pulled the lever for Trump interchangeable with the group of people who traveled to Washington D.C. yesterday and those among them who rioted.

Why did people riot? We dont have any academic papers on that just yet, but I was there and peoples primary motivation seemed clearly to be their belief that a landslide election was being stolen by elites.

Far beyond alleged racial and sexual resentment, part of the reason people flocked to Trump in the GOP primary and again in 2016 and 2020 is that elites repeatedly smear them as bigots. If you talk to Trump supporters, it comes up time and again.

People in Washington and Manhattan and Los Angeles have said for years that making such horrifying decisions as voting for Mitt Romney, wearing the wrong dress to prom, believing in biological sex, celebrating Mount Rushmore, and disliking Colin Kaepernick are rooted in bigotry. Sadly, however, I dont think Wilson and his many like-minded media peers can be convinced otherwise.

That, however, is why my lachrymose evocations of Trumps forgotten people, as Wilson put it, did not make the same dubious claim advanced in his article. Nor is my criticism of Trumps language a tack, made for fear of going down with his ship, a vessel I have never been on.

This publication rightfully gives voice to a wide swath of decent people who have zero representation in the media. Im proud of that, even when I disagree with certain articles. But Im less concerned with Wilsons stereotyping of me than I am with his stereotyping of 74 million American voters.

Theres no hedging on the rioters. Ill gladly stamp every last one of them as reckless idiots. But I will not dismiss all the presidents supporters as bigots, nor will I dismiss the people who flocked to the streets to support Black Lives Matter this summer as irredeemable socialists drunk on critical theory. Aside from being unkind, that would just plainly be incorrect.

The constructive strategy to prevent future chaos and bloodshed is not doubling down on sweeping generalizations of Trump supporters as bigots. That is both inaccurate and destined to further inflame our burning divisions.

Original post:

Left Won't Be Satisfied Until Conservatives Smear Trump Voters As Bigots - The Federalist

Facebook announced it would be stripping all photos and videos featuring Wednesdays riots at the U.S. Capitol, claiming such content promoted criminal activity.

At this point, the company wrote, they represent promotion of criminal activity which violates our policies. No such widespread censorship was afforded to the left-wing riots erupting last year, killing at least 30 people while reporters stood in front of burning blazes and characterized the events as peaceful protests.

Facebooks decision comes as Twitter declared a 12-hour suspension of President Donald Trumps account, going on to threaten a permanent ban against the president after removing a video from the White House urging his supporters raiding the capitol building to go home now.

The tech giant also barred users from sharing Trumps plea for peace by prohibiting likes, retweets, or replies. Twitter continued, warning it would be monitoring even statements made off Twitter for possible suspension.

Trumps removal from Twitter had long been a primary policy priority of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, wholaunched a crusade during the Democratic primaries in 2019. A former Harris spokesman is now one of Twitters top communications officers.

The big tech crackdown follows an explosive day of violent riots overwhelming security at the nations Capitol, prompting evacuations as Congress prepared to certify the results of the Electoral College granting former Vice President Joe Biden the presidency.

One woman shot inside the building amid the afternoon riots later died.

The National Guard was deployed Wednesday evening to protect lawmakers resuming business once the building was finally secured.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser implemented a 12-hour curfew to run from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Wednesday night to Thursday morning.

See the original post here:

Facebook Will Ban And Delete All Photos And Videos Of Capitol Riots - The Federalist

Written by Jeremy Goldberg Jan 6, 2021 | STATESCOOP

While cities have often been considered the drivers of civic technology, that torch largely passed last year to states, which are responsible for many of the programs we need to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic from distributing unemployment insurance and nutrition benefits to disseminating information about health care. All of this happens amid an often dithering response from the federal government.

COVID-19 put states technology in headlines for all the wrong reasons, especially when unemployment systems buckled under unprecedented volume during the coronavirus first wave, leading often to anger and frustration.

States must now follow through and make permanent the gains made during the health crisis. Failure to take advantage of this opportunity will mean a more stagnant recovery, more unserved residents and a technology landscape vulnerable to future emergencies.

When we emerge from the pandemic, technology should have a federalist moment in which the same principle of shared power that shapes our political system will be the main driver of government technology, with a greater role for state leadership in developing the tools and applications that power public services.

As states become the new centers of innovation in government technology over the next decade, they must bring the benefits of well-run and supported government technology to their residents. However, state IT cannot meet the demands of this moment on its own.

The U.S. government needs to provide states with support for three central investments: core digital infrastructure, promoting transparency and making government more resident-friendly.

Just as states spent much of 2020 navigating the COVID-19 pandemic with little investment or leadership from the federal government, they now find themselves struggling alone to distribute the first vaccines against the disease.

Likewise, states are still figuring out how to help those most in need without supporting investments in core physical and digital infrastructure, like broadband connectivity, to make sure low-income and rural residents are not left behind.

In New York, state officials leveraged funding from the CARES Act to help jumpstart this transformation by investing in networking infrastructure, software solutions to help agencies provide their services remotely and things as simple as the devices to help the state workforce reach residents from anywhere.

These investments have been instrumental to the pandemic response, but we also need them to achieve President-elect Joe Bidens oft-invoked goal of building back better.

The money spent so far can serve as a proof-of-concept for a Federal Build Back Better Technology Fund in future relief packages, from which states would receive the resources they need to put their technology plans into effect. This should be managed at the federal level in consultation with leading government technologists.

Done right, technology is well positioned to build more effective and transparent government that residents can trust. Open data efforts at all levels of government have helped achieve that. Now, governments need to build on what they learned from the pandemic. New York and California, for example, created dashboards to help people make decisions and understand how their governments actions were affecting the crisis. Combined with clear leadership, these efforts improved trust.

Progress should be shared openly, including sharing code to further reduce costs, and residents should be able to easily understand how money is being spent, the impact on government services, numbers of residents served and state priorities. States should be accountable to their residents and should also make their successes known so real improvements can generate support and momentum.

As important as transparency and effective communication are, most people just want government to work how and when they need it. Residents should have single log-ins for all their government services, payment systems that behave consistently across transactions and applications that are reliable no matter what device theyre using.

Government employees should have easy-to-use tools to help them do their work efficiently and effectively to achieve their agencies missions. Techs federalist moment is all about states taking the lead to transform the experience of interacting with government, and that means changes to more than just technology.

States must also transform their processes and operations so that they work together. Forms should be simple and consistent, information should be presented in ways proven to make sense to residents and the sometimes arcane internal logic of the way government agencies operate should not dictate how residents interact with them. Well-designed apps like Californias CalFresh or New Yorks Find Services help residents get what they need and reduce administrative burden.

States are also positioned to tailor their technology to the services they offer and work with local governments to build a more seamless experience. The just-passed spending bill included a provision to make .gov URLs more easily available to state and local governments. Its a good first step of how all levels of government can work together to make it less confusing and more secure to interact with government websites.

The federal government can help with funding and expertise, and states must be prepared to prioritize, communicate their needs, and collaborate. States can further amplify the impact of those investments by creating a pipeline to local governments and to residents.

With investment and renewed commitment, technology can make government work better for people and states will be the ones to make that a reality. Techs federalist moment is here, but it is the investment, not the idea, that will make government work better.

Jeremy M. Goldberg is the former deputy secretary for technology and innovation for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and the former interim chief information officer of New York State.

Continued here:

Why it's time for state IT to have a 'federalist moment' - StateScoop

In big techs most recent censorship sweep on Friday, Twitter permanently suspended the accounts of former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, claiming they violated the platforms policies against harmful activity.

The accounts have been suspended in line with our policy on Coordinated Harmful Activity, a Twitter spokesman told NBC News. Weve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm, and given the renewed potential for violence surrounding this type of behavior in the coming days, we will permanently suspend accounts that are solely dedicated to sharing QAnon content.

According to Twitters Coordinated Harmful Activity policy, violators who manipulate or propagate information that creates physical, psychological, or informational harm can be limited, prohibited from certain actions, and suspended.

In order to take action under this framework, we must find both evidence that individuals associated with a group, movement, or campaign are engaged in some form of coordination and that the results of that coordination cause harm to others, the website states.

Also suspended during the sweep was Ron Watkins, who runs the website 8kun, formerly known as 8chan. Techno_fog, an account dedicated to providing breaking news information about Flynns court case, was also purged.

The ban comes just days after Twitter placed a lock on Trumps account on Wednesday, following a series of now-deleted posts that the company claimsviolated its Civic Integrity policy.

Facebook and Instagram also announced that they banned Trump from their platforms for an indefinite period of time beginning Thursday, citing Wednesdays tumultuous, destructive events at the Capitol as one of the main reasons.

Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

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

View original post here:

Michael Flynn And Sidney Powell Are Permanently Banned From Twitter - The Federalist

Restoration of trust in due process is the central goal of the statement issued by Sen. Ted Cruz on election integrity. He and the 11 other senators who signed it understand something that few officials and punditsparticularly many self-described conservativesare willing to admit: to certify electors without a comprehensive investigation into thousands of allegations of fraud in the 2020 election would be a betrayal of Americans trust as well as an egregious violation of their oath to protect the Constitution.

Whether or not you agree there was massive electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential election does not really matter at this point. Every American should be deeply concerned if nearly half of all voters are convinced that large-scale fraud handed the election to the Biden-Harris ticket. Some may hope the conviction will fade with time, but more likely the distrust will deepen, especially since it comes despite non-stop denials and censorship about fraud by both Big Tech and Big Media.

Rasmussens poll indicates that 47 percent of voters believe fraud swayed the election (and 75 percent of Republicans). Some dismiss Rasmussen as leaning to the right. But even standard left-leaning pollsters such as Quinnipiac and Reuters consistently claim that half of Republicans believe there was massive fraud.

Reuters even noted that 16 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents agreed. And Quinnipiac has a sizable percentage of all registered voters34 percentnot believing the Biden-Harris ticket won legitimately. Some expect these millions of Americans to come around. But its more likely their uneasiness will fester as more facts about fraud ooze through the cracks in the media machinery in the months to come.

Any way you slice it, the numbers are disturbing. And we all feel in our gut that Novembers election was the weirdest in Americas history. You neednt be a Trump voter to be disturbed by obvious peculiarities. Then theres the lack of ability to publicly audit voting machines, the lack of transparency during counting processes, and more.

While Trumps legal team may not have had the time to investigate, bring, or win many non-procedural arguments, these concerns still matter to the public and deserve investigation. For a thorough run-down of the many glaring anomalies generating public concern, see the 36-page report by Peter Navarro, director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. Or Willis Krumholzs well-researched piece at The Federalist or this tongue-in-cheek Twitter thread.

The more invested Big Media and Big Tech are in driving their preferred narratives into our brains, the more reason we have to distrust them. Their immediate labeling as disputed of any fraud reporting feels like they doth protest too much.

Their constant claim that election fraud is extremely rare is as laughable as claiming that human beings would never in a million years cheat when the prize is power. Spare us. The crisis of trust in America feels deeper than ever before.

The essence of conservatism is to conserve principles of due process and the rule of law. Those values are essential for avoiding chaos and tyranny. So why would anyone identifying as conservative ignore the innumerable oddities revealed since November 3?

Even the editorial board of the supposedly conservative New York Post in telling President Trump to give it up would not squarely address the central concern: auditability of votes and transparency. Its ad hominem argumentation included the Pravda-esque line Sidney Powell is a crazy person.

We already know that Big Tech and the propaganda media are invested in fraud denial and in shutting up anybody who asks about abnormalities by comparing them to Holocaust deniers. Sadly, thats no puzzle. Nor need we question why Democrats dont care if their win is perceived as grand theft by scores of millions of Americans. They just dont care how theyre perceived as long as they can control every aspect of what they view as your sad and unworthy little life.

So the more vexing questionand the rude awakeningis this: Why do so many self-identified conservatives play along with a media machine that is already 95 percent in the Democrats corner? The list is long, and includes many big-name Republican officials who have taken a particularly hostile stance against any real investigation into voter fraud, including Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and scores of other supposedly conservative members of Congress.

As Federalist editor Mollie Hemingway recently pointed out, there is a big disconnect between most of conservative blue checkmark Twitter and the bulk of average Americans on the right regarding the existence of election fraud. No question about that.

In addition to GOP officials, lots of self-identified conservative pundits have rejected concerns about voter fraud in this most bizarre of elections. Popular American Conservative writer Rod Dreher, among others, has mocked those who challenge the election results.

Why is it so important to these conservatives that every single American aligns with a propaganda machine that is now almost completely anti-thought? At the very least, they should understand the stakes of allowing massive electoral oddities to go unexamined. They should be especially unsettled about the loss of trust in our electoral process rather than joining with the left in dismissing so many concerned citizens as kooks.

In short, why are they so willing to accept abnormalities as normal?

One cannot get directly into the heads and hearts of any self-identified conservative who dismisses the possibility of any significant election fraud in 2020. But we should at least try to figure out this riddle because the future of election integrityand therefore, freedomdepends on it. Why not investigate? Here are just five possibilities.

Possibility 1: They really believe the election was fair and that any questions about fraud should go unaddressed now and in the future. I think we can dismiss this one. They probably arent that detached from reality. If they were sincere, they would at least want an investigation to alleviate the massive amounts of distrust poisoning society.

They also exhibit a huge double standard by rejecting an immediate follow-up investigation while accepting four solid years of Democrats non-stop obstruction of Congress with the Russian collusion hoax after the 2016 election.

Possibility 2: They feel that there were indeed abnormalities and insecure voting, but since they dont see clear proof, they think the election should go unchallenged. I understand concerns about perceptions, about conservatives looking like sore losers going forward. But the stakes are too high. And its odd that conservatives must ask no questions after just a few weeks of the craziest election in American history, while Democrats could proceed for four solid years of fake claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But this self-inflicted double standard goes far deeper. If we dont allow the wild abnormalities of 2020 to go without scrutiny, how in the world can we ever have any free and fair elections going forward? The answer is: we cannot because we will have institutionalized the abnormalities by letting them go.

If nothing else, conservatives must all be on board with addressing the disastrous crisis of trust this election has produced. The only way to do that is by conducting a thorough and transparent investigation into every aspect of this election. Why not give this election even 10 percent of the focus and time the Democrats gave the 2016 election?

Possibility 3: They have something to hide. Just ponder the depth of the rot and swamp gas in Washington as well as Communist Chinas deep roots there. Covering up something fishy is usually the motive behind the massive denials of fraud and gaslighting that have saturated social media since the election.

We all know in our gut that our institutions have been badly corrupted. Election fraud is a no-brainer for the shameless and the corrupt. So we cant rule out this possibility.

Possibility 4: They were never conservatives to begin with. Obviously, this is the case with the Lincoln Project and its corps of Never Trumpers. Theyve now proven no true allegiance to constitutional principles, and have joined the left in calling for revenge on all Trump supporters.

Campaigning to put your perceived enemies into gulags is not exactly a conservative principle. But we can ask the same question of those who seem less extremist such as former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: Was he ever a real conservative to begin with? Or he is an opportunist who found a convenient host in the Republican Party?

In any event, its pointless not to expect a big disconnect between conservative elites and most conservative Americans. After all, the Marxist forces that gained a strong foothold in the Democrat Party since 1968 have made a point of affecting the GOP as well. Were only just noticing.

Possibility 5: They are saturated with status anxiety or simply feel personal pressure to make nice with a Harris-Biden administration. The most obvious possibility is that they feel career pressure to establish bona fides with the perceived winner. In short, theyre scared.

I think this garden-variety cowardice most likely explains the self-identified conservatives who join in the scapegoating of Trumps supporters. We can even detect this herd instinct in televangelist Pat Robertsons claim that Biden won fair and square. Having been the butt of ridicule in the past, perhaps the aging Robertson is aching for a pat on the back from his erstwhile enemies.

No one is immune from that human frailty. There is a yearning to retain a sense of relevance, even in a new and hostile order, while at the same time pretending to espouse ones adopted principles. Too often, the center cant hold, and venal interests win out over principles.

In the end, every American of good will should be committed to restoring trust in the election process, if thats still possible. We should have all been interested in getting an accurate count, no matter who won in the end. That doesnt mean re-counting votes that could be bogus. It means auditing votes, investigating voting processes, and doing everything possible to restore public trust in elections.

Otherwise, abnormality becomes the new normal and self-governance is lost. Its tragic that so many so-called conservatives have refused to do anything to even try to restore that trust.

This article has been changed since publication.

View post:

Ridiculing Election Fraud Concerns Will Not Make Them Go Away - The Federalist

Democratic politicians, the corrupt corporate media, and others continue to condemn the Republican senators and representatives who announced they will object to the 2020 election certification, but in 2005, both Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama supported objection to the certification of George W. Bush as president.

In 2005, Democrats in Congress objected to the certification of Ohios 20 electoral votes for Bush on the grounds that they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. The objection was overturned but continued to be highlighted by some on the left.

How can we possibly tell millions of Americans who registered to vote, who came to the polls in record numbers, particularly our young people to simply get over it and move on? the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, said.

Democrats didnt mock Tubbs Joness concerns about election integrity. Instead, her left-wing colleagues in the Senate, such as Clinton and Obama, amplified and echoed her sentiments.

As we look at our election system, I think its fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its integrity, and theyre not confined to the state of Ohio, said Clinton, then a senator from New York. I would hope that this body, and thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which is starting today will continue, she added, preaching about the Golden Rule and giving everyone a fair chance to explain why they were concerned.

Obama also expressed support for the objection, claiming it was within the Democrats abilities and authority to question the election results.

There is no reason at a time when we have enormous battles taking place ideologically all across the aisle, at a time when were trying to make certain that we encourage democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places throughout the world, that we have the legitimacy of our elections challenged rightly or wrongly by people who are not certain as to whether our processes are fair and just, he said.

Now, despite the lefts firm insistence that the objection to the 2020 certification by politicians such as Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas is a coup attempt that undermines the state of the republic, multiple House Democrats attempted to object to the electoral votes from multiple states in Donald Trumps election to the presidency in 2016, citing concerns over the now-disproved Russia hoax and potentially hacked voting machines.

The electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

The objections were overruled by then-Vice President Joe Biden, who repeated that objections were required to be in writing and signed by someone from each chamber of Congress.

The same process occurred in2001 when at least 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others attempted to block Floridas electoral vote certification for George W. Bush, claiming the black vote was suppressed. The objections were ruled as out of order by then-Vice President Al Gore after they were not supported by any members in the Senate.

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

View original post here:

Watch Obama And Clinton Support Objection To The 2005 Certification - The Federalist

This year, Somalia is going into enormously consequential elections that will determine the fate of the country, its geopolitical role and its significance in the Horn of Africa region. Already, the Federal Indirect Electoral Commission (FIEC) has produced the voting timetable: parliamentary elections by Jan. 6, 2021, and presidential elections by Feb. 7, 2021. Given the political atmosphere in the country, however, an electoral and legislative impasse is in the making.

The FIEC has already missed its deadline for holding upper house elections, and there is a real possibility that some Federal Member States (FMS) will abstain from the electoral process. This is a grave concern in Somalia and its efforts of state-building.

At the foundation of this political cul-de-sac is Somalias federal system that was adopted in 2012 after a long transition period. Ever since the election of President Mohammed Abdullahi Mohammed in 2017, the federal system of governance seems to have hit a wall, and this is the hallmark of the nature of Somalias structure.

With parliamentary and presidential elections early this year, Somalia and its federalism are at a crossroads. The stakes of this years elections are high: The electoral outcome will have both national and geopolitical ramifications.

Genesis of federalism

One of the definitions of power, according to the Italian theoretician Antonio Gramsci, is the capacity to influence and convince others that your own agenda is beneficial and in tandem to their own interests.

Somalias federalism traces its genesis to the political calculations and regional ambitions of the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) which is now a designated terrorist group in Ethiopia. The TPLF, employing its hegemonic powers in the region, along with the presence of Ethiopian peace-keeping soldiers in Somalia and the interests of a section of Somali elites, instituted a federal form of governance in Somalia.

However, federalism has failed in Somalia. Federalism is a system of governance that is common in ethnically, linguistically or religiously diverse nation-states. Germany whose own federalism and partitioning is a by-product of its defeat in World War I is the only peculiar nation-state with a federal government arrangement. Hence, federalism was a TPLF-imposed form of governance with the aim of regulating potential political and geopolitical threats from Mogadishu and creating a Somali state in the image of Ethiopias federal system, which was dominated by the TPLF until the premiership of Abiy Ahmed Ali in 2018.

Federalism has occasioned a center-periphery power struggle in Somalia and it has led to Puntland and Jubaland hindering the central government from exercising its political mandates. It is undermining state-building efforts in Somalia by fabricating ahistorical identities, political ideologies, flags and states that lack both historical and sociological underpinnings.

Furthermore, federalism has already become entangled with geopolitics as federal states are aligning themselves with regional and gulf powers and consequently undermining the central governments foreign policy.

Governance or sovereignty?

Although a system like federalism is ideal for a country like Somalia that is recovering from a long and devastating civil war, it also poses dangers in the Somali context. From a sociological and anthropological perspective, federalism is a threat to the Somali state. Given that Somalis are divided into clans, a federal system will only exacerbate political disagreements, from which the current political crisis is a good indicator.

Moreover, in a country like Somalia where political elites espouse clan and regional interests, federalism will not engender the patriotism and civic solidarity that are essential in state-building.

Somalias federalism needs urgent reforms and reconstitutions that are unique to the Somali context. Devolution of governance is desirable and necessary in Somalia, but it should be balanced with a strong central state. This will entail compromise and trust in the political class.

No one voted in a referendum for federalism in Somalia, and moreover, it is a TPLF political design. Thus, it depends on the elites in government, in the opposition and at the federal state level to reform it.

The current fissure that has produced a nationalist camp and a federalist camp is not helpful and it is already undermining this years elections and the countrys peace. Nevertheless, this years elections are crucial and will determine the nature of the Somali state and its foreign policy outlook.

Stakes in 2021 elections

Opposition groups are accusing the current government in Somalia of pursuing nationalist agendas and of undermining the federal arrangement. The central bureaucracy and its allies (the Galmudug, Hirshabelle and Koonfur Galbeed states) allege that the opposition's presidential candidates and the leaders of Jubaland and Puntland are sabotaging the state-building process, pursuing self-interests and pushing the interests of foreign states in the region and in the Gulf. If the nationalist camp wins this election, federalism in Somalia could end or it may be radically reformed.

If the current government loses power, however, federalism and its political disputes based on clan interests will persist and any new leader has to deal with Galmudug, Hirshabelle and Koonfur Galbeed.

Moreover, this election will also determine the foreign policy of Somalia. With relations already at their lowest with Kenya, any new leader has to tread the geopolitical minefield of the region and the Gulf and continue strategic relations with Turkey and the United States. These international powers have played a critical role in Somalias state-building processes and this election will be a litmus test for Somalia and its achievements so far.

*Graduate student and a teaching fellow in the Sociology Department of Ibn Haldun University, Istanbul

Read more:

Somalias 2021 elections and the threats of federalism | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah

Kenosha County District Attorney Michael Graveley announced on Monday that the officers involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in August in Kenosha, Wisconsin, will not be charged.

According to Graveley, there was not sufficient and admissible evidence to support an unlawful shooting charge against law enforcement. He also clarified that Blake will not be charged.

This was a tragedy, first and foremost, for Jacob Blake, who still suffers from grievous injuries. These are life-lastinginjuries that he suffers from today, Graveley said.

The challenge now and part of what I hope to begin in my conversation today is, rather than burning things down,can moments of tragedy like thisbe an opportunity to build things? Graveley said. Are there times and circumstances that are tragic where communities in their healing process can begin to make themselves a better community?

The announcement comes months after Blake was shot in the back seven times by Officer Rusten Sheskey after Blake grappled with and then attempted to flee the police tasers and enter a vehicle containing three of his children. The shooting, which left him partially paralyzed, was caught on video and shows that Blake may have been holding a knife, which was later recovered from the scene.

Officers originally pursued Blake in response to a complaint from his girlfriend, who said he was violating a restraining order.

The shooting of Blake sparked mass outrage on social media and beyond, with many including the corporate media perpetuating a narrative that the shooting was unjustified and racially motivated. Shortly following the shooting, people took to the streets of Kenosha to riot, loot, and set buildings on fire in the name of racial justice and protesting police brutality.

At nightfall, Kenosha became rowdy as rioters threw projectiles at police officers who tried to contain the crowds, often deploying tear gas, pepper balls, and other munitions. According to The Federalist reporting on the ground, some businesses, a church, and a car lot were completely ripped apart from the chaos, looting, and arson.

Multiple victims were also shot during the fallout over the summer, some fatally, allegedly by teen Kyle Rittenhouse, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Monday.

In light of the violence in the city over the course of the summer, the Kenosha County Sheriffs Department officially declared a state of emergency on Monday in anticipation of the decision, citing the potential for rioting, looting, damage to county and city property and civil unrest as well as escalating tension. The Kenosha Common Council also approved a resolution for an emergency declaration in the city, conferring Mayor John Antaramian with emergency powers.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers joined the city in preparing for potential unrest by sending in 500 troops of the National Guard while others began boarding up their businesses and windows, closing down roads, and erecting fencing around public buildings.

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:

No Police Officers Will Be Charged In Kenosha Shooting Of Jacob Blake - The Federalist