Category Archives: Federalist

It is no secret that there is a legitimate demographic crisis in most of the Western world. Birth rates in America and most of Europe have declined well below the level needed to replace the population. There are plenty of religious, patriotic, economic, and social reasons for Americans to be deeply concerned about this trend. This has caused an interesting willingness among conservatives to embrace heterodox policy ideas that traditional libertarian economic thinkers find abhorrent. One now finds conservatives calling for Republicans to get serious about the governments family and public health policy, as well as Republicans such as Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida being the insistent voices for increased child tax credits.

There is an inherent tension here. On one hand, conservatives are suspicious of any increase in government spending or interference in the lives of citizens, rightly believing that most charity is best distributed at the local level by families, churches, charitable organizations, etc. On the other hand, we are staring at a civilizational crisis where people are not having enough children to sustain the population. This has serious consequences for our ability to function as a stable society with a thriving, healthy economy.

Conservatives will have to continue this dialogue about how to enact pro-family economic policies that encourage stronger, larger families without unnecessary government intrusion into family life. Child tax credits created through the tax code and administered by the Internal Revenue Service are one thing; the Family Security Act proposed by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, which would give families a monthly payment administered through the Social Security Administration is quite another.

Conservatives will have to make distinctions and draw lines in the sand to determine how much government expansion we are going to tolerate to accomplish these policy goals. Creating another welfare program through the Social Security Administration seems to go well beyond pro-family tax reform. If conservatives are willing to accept that some pro-family policies may be good even if they come with taxpayer expense and a new government program, we need to start developing a framework to distinguish good family policy from bad.

Pennsylvanias new Child and Dependent Care Enhancement Program that was just passed in the commonwealths budget is a perfect example of bad family policy mistakenly being celebrated as good family policy. It would be one thing if this were passed in a state thoroughly controlled by Democrats. But both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature are controlled by Republicans. Budgets are creatures of compromise, and there is nothing wrong with Republicans moving toward tax policies that encourage having more children. But conservatives need to be wary of how such pro-family policy is crafted and what preferences are contained within such policies. Republican legislators must take care that they are not unwittingly embracing leftist ideals in the name of pro-family reform.

Supporters point out that this new tax credit will help low-income families by defraying the costs of childcare. But those same supporters are falsely claiming that the tax credit is fashioned after the federal child tax credit, which was increased by the American Rescue Plan in 2021. There is a big, clear difference between the federal tax credit and the new Pennsylvania tax credit: The federal credit is a tax credit given to families under a certain annual income, based on how many dependent children they have. The new Pennsylvania credit allows parents to recoup a percentage of their childcare expenses.

At least someone in the Pennsylvania papers caught the difference, to a certain extent. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board realized the obvious: Some people choose to make sacrifices to have a parent stay home with their children. Others are too poor to afford costly childcare and rely on family members to take care of their children while they are at work. Both these categories of parents are apparently excluded from the Pennsylvania tax credit because they are not paying for daycare.

The editorial calls for at least a smaller standard credit of a few hundred dollars per child for those who choose to keep care in the family. This proposed compromise is still inadequate. Both for reasons of fairness and of good social policy, it is bad for the government to incentivize full-time institutional daycare rather than a family caring for its own children full-time.

The editorial points out what should be common sense: Most of the time, a two-income family earns more money than a one-income family. If families choose for a parent to stay home and care for children full-time, that is an economic sacrifice for most families. If the purpose of these daycare tax credits is to ease the costly burdens of childcare, why does the policy only ease the burden of daycare and not the burden of the one-income family who sacrifices a second income to keep a parent home for childcare?

This is not merely an economically unfair governmental choice. There is a serious and insidious social policy preference in the childcare tax credit. Most tax policies express preferential choices. Corporate entities are taxed differently often more favorably than individuals because we acknowledge that incentivizing LLCs, corporations, and partnerships to be more profitable creates jobs and produces good results for society. In kind payments (payments made with products, services, or something other than cash) are still treated as taxable income because we prefer not to let businesses get away with not paying taxes by bartering. And we have a federal child tax credit because we prefer people to have children. Each of these examples has both an economic reason (it is good for our economy to have this preference) and a moral one (it is good for our society to be this way).

The childcare tax credit adopted in Pennsylvania is not good for our society because it expresses a bad policy preference. If a family has children, both the mother and father work outside the home, and the family uses full-time institutional daycare for the children, the government will subsidize that with thousands of dollars in tax credits. If a family has children and one parent works while the other stays home to care for the children, the government does not subsidize the parents decision to stay home with the children. If both parents work (or if it is a single-parent household) and the children are cared for by a relative, the government also does not offer the tax credit. There is a clear policy preference expressed by the Pennsylvania government: It is better for families with children to have two working parents and to pay someone else to care for their children. This is bad policy.

There are many reasons it is beneficial for families to have a parent stay at home with children. Children tend to do better educationally when a parent stays home with them and/or chooses to homeschool. There is also good research suggesting that children develop more behavioral problems like stress and aggression when cared for full-time by out-of-home daycare rather than by a stay-at-home parent. Admittedly there are challenges for stay-at-home parents, such as the desire to return to work outside the home and the danger of social isolation. But having a stay-at-home parent is a good decision for raising intelligent, well-adjusted children.

Society benefits from having more intelligent, well-adjusted children. So the government should enact policies that encourage a parent to stay at home and be the full-time caretaker for children. If families decide they want or need two incomes to support their household, they are free to make that choice. But when the government actually incentivizes the decision to have ones children cared for full-time by a paid childcare institution rather than by the childrens own parents, it raises a question: Is this really good for families, for children, for society? Or is the government incentivizing the further distortion of the natural family? Is this a proper pro-family policy or a nod to socialism?

Incentivizing families to have more children through child tax credits, like the current federal tax code does, is a reasonable policy preference for conservatives concerned about our nations demographic decline. Subsidizing only those families who choose full-time institutional daycare, while disincentivizing families choosing to have a stay-at-home parent or using extended family for childcare, favors a socialist understanding of family and work life. Conservatives in general and Republican legislators in particular should be sensitive to this distinction.

Frank DeVito is an attorney living in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and three young children. His work has previously been published in The American Conservative, the Quinnipiac Law Review and the Penn State Online Law Review.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See the original post:

Discouraging Parents From Raising Their Own Kids Isn't Pro-Family - The Federalist

More than a hundred pregnancy centers across the country have been vandalized this year in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice still has done nothing about this despite pledging to conduct investigations. Most politicians and the corporate media seem completely uninterested in discussing the matter, much less calling for any action.

When given the opportunity to be on the right side of this problem with a proposed resolution to condemn the violence, House Democrats promptly voted against it. They made it clear that they do not want to defend pregnancy centers. They believe violence against these places is acceptable.

Even though its well known that leftists like to celebrate abortion and are upset about the recent decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, its hard to fathom why they should hate pregnancy centers. These organizations help women with their pregnancies, offering all kinds of support during and after pregnancy. They arent harassing abortionists or marching in the streets and disrupting traffic. They are fully pro-woman and work to offer a choice besides abortion for desperate mothers.

Nevertheless, Democrats have demonized pregnancy centers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wants to shut all of them down because they fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination and torture expecting mothers by offering them a way to have their baby safely. Although pro-lifers have rightly criticized Warren for these remarks, many on the left tacitly agree with her.

But why? Not only is it flatly contradictory to come out as pro-choice and yet eliminate the choice to have a baby, but its also wrong to bully charitable organizations that serve vulnerable mothers. Why do pregnancy centers draw so much hate?

One reason is that pregnancy centers are bad for the abortion business. Because people are constantly bombarded by the pro-abortion rhetoric of liberation and female empowerment, they tend to forget that Planned Parenthood and every other abortion provider is a business seeking to make money. Pregnancy centers cut into their profits by taking away clients and siphoning off public funding. In response, they lobby Congress and donate to political campaigns like Warrens in order to hamstring and shut down their competitors.

Another reason is that pregnancy centers are the most powerful refutation of abortion. They enable women to endure the difficulties associated with carrying a child and bringing it to term. They provide the material, emotional, and spiritual support necessary to have a baby. Besides giving that child a chance for a healthy and happy life, they do the same for mothers who suffer from abuse, poverty, and several other challenges.

Understanding this is essential. Although most debates over abortion often center on the question of personhood, the real reason most women seek an abortion is that having a baby is difficult. Even if a mother makes the heart-wrenching decision to put her child up for adoption, she still has to go through nine months of pregnancy and delivery. Her body, mind, and soul will be tested, and, at times, it will feel overwhelming.

Once the baby is born, these difficulties continue. Infants are needy and fragile. They continue demanding everything from the mother, who, in turn, will require a great deal of assistance from the father or whoever else is around to lend a hand. For the typical modern adult accustomed to an easy job, abundant leisure, and relatively few responsibilities, having a baby is more than merely disruptive; it is traumatic.

However, despite this, most parents will say a family is worth it. Yes, theres often pain, suffering, and boredom, but just as often, theres joy, fulfillment, and fun. With a child, there may be many trials, but there are no regrets. With abortion, there may be fewer trials, but regret will always be present.

This is why the goal of the pro-abortion crowd is less about explaining away the humanity of the unborn and more about making parenthood seem impossible. They will play up the rigors of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing while downplaying the accompanying rewards. Simultaneously, they will portray abortion as a consequence-free escape that will enable women to live their best lives.

In this most recent vote, Democrats have shown their hand. More than pro-life protests, pro-life media, or even pro-life politicians voting to outlaw abortions, they fear women who are in dire circumstances deciding to have their children. If word gets out that its possible to make it through pregnancy, have a child, and take care of that child in its infancy, many women may start to realize just how unnecessary and abominable the alternative is.

The pro-abortion left operates on the assumption that all women are weak, selfish, and unable to succeed as mothers. Pregnancy centers thwart these assumptions by empowering women and helping them turn what seems like a problem into a blessing with limitless potential. If Democrats choose to condemn these organizations, the pro-life movement needs to support them all the more by sharing in the work of helping mothers and building up a pro-family culture.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

Here's Why Democrats Have Waged War On Pregnancy Centers - The Federalist

New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens admitted in a snarky article headlined I Was Wrong About Trump Voters that Democrats ploy to undermine Donald Trump was truly a hoax.

While most of the corrupt press and institutions such as the Pulitzer Prize board still refuse to acknowledge that the discredited Steele dossier and every piece of information Hillary Clintons campaign fed to the corporate media about Trump colluding with Russia was hogwash, Stephens finally acknowledges that the Republican was unfairly targeted.

To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax theres just no other word for it that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it, Stephens wrote.

Six years after the Steele dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS which was hired by Clintons campaign lawyers firm, someone in the propaganda press has finally granted what real reporters such as The Federalists Spygate experts have known all along.

Stephens article is far from the apology the headline portrays it to be. But in conceding that the corporate media, in addition to intelligence agencies and the Democrat party, waged a war on Trump, the NYT writer has done more than any other journo or outlet that spread lies and misinformation about the nonexistent collusion and pee tapes.

Unfortunately, its not enough. Stephens, who has been in the media world for decades, does not apologize nor take any responsibility for participating in the medias collusion hoax factory. He shows no remorse for writing articles that affirmed the Steele dossier, nor does he acknowledge that his employer is guilty of mass publishing lie-ridden stories about Trump and the Russians.

If a guy who was complicit in the Democrats scheme to keep Trump out of office is admitting the reality of the Russia collusion story is that there was no collusion, every outlet that has refused to admit any error is even worse than he is.

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

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Link:

Bret Stephens Is First In Big Media To Admit Russian Collusion Was A 'Hoax' - The Federalist

If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?

This was always my parents equally prudent and absurd retort to my youthful protestations of their rules with an appeal to the majority: All my friends are doing it! To their credit, they were right. Going with the majority is not always the best course, and in fact rarely is in matters of great significance.

So it is with so-called same-sex marriage which is distinct from homosexuality generally in that marriage is a sacred institution, established by God as a covenant between one man and one woman for the purpose of family formation and recognized by the government. The Supreme Court discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution in 2015; these unions have thus been granted all the marital benefits of couples who perpetuate societal growth through procreation; and the media have assured everyone that its an issue that almost everybody has long since decided was uncontroversial.

In many ways, it is. Since 2015, Americans, including even many of those under the conservative label, have gone along to get along patronizing very pride-y establishments, celebrating the unions of their gay friends, and keeping quiet about the issue at best. The latest Gallup poll on the matter, released last month, shows support for same-sex marriage is up one point from last year to a new high of 71 percent, with weekly churchgoers being the primary remaining holdouts.

But with the reversal of Roe v. Wade and in a panic before the midterms, Democrats are rushing to enshrine a right to gay marriage into law (as if there are no other pressing issues they should focus on) and Republicans are falling for it. On Tuesday, a whopping 47 Republicans in the House sided with Democrats in supporting the ill-named Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify a right for gay couples to marry.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he intends to bring it for a vote in his chamber, and a few Republicans have already signaled their support in the 50-50 split Senate, but many of the rest of them are on the fence. Although support for same-sex marriage isnt exactly a conservative ideal (though a majority of Republicans now support it), the all my friends are doing it impulse paired with a general lack of conservative principles among our power-motivated legislators already caused 47 GOP representatives to jump off the cliff, and the same temptation is coming for cagey senators.

As Slate put it: Gay Marriage: Senate Republicans Have No Idea What To Do About The Respect For Marriage Act.

Well, since they have no idea what to do and since the conservative response to this alarming House vote has been weak while peer pressure is strong heres a suggestion: Resist the urge to leap into the abyss, and instead keep your feet firmly planted on the solid ground that is traditional marriage.

Cue the bigot smears, but remember we arent talking about shipping gays off to conversion therapy, erasing them from society, or criminalizing their personal lives. This is about the one very specific arena of marriage, and its OK to oppose the majority on this one. And thus its OK to oppose this piece of marriage-centric legislation.

First, marriage matters. It matters to the government, with traditional marriage rightly having distinct legal protections as the only union that naturally produces children for the sake of whom those marriages should remain intact. The government has no interest in peoples sexual behaviors except if those behaviors produce children, who are vulnerable for some 20 years of their lives and therefore must be legally protected in ways adults dont need to be. The legal protection children require is marriage, and thus marriage is not a sanction of any form of adult sexuality or affection but about children. And since same-sex relationships by nature cannot produce children, they dont need government involvement.

But marriage matters for so many other things too, not least of which are physical health and wellness, societal flourishing, home building, and financial planning. It also matters to the God who created it so it matters not what most people think.

Jack Phillips didnt care what the majority thought when he kindly served gay customers yet declined to celebrate a same-sex marriage by designing a wedding cake. Neither did Barronelle Stutzman, who made friends with a frequent gay customer but couldnt in good conscience participate in his homosexual wedding even though it meant losing almost everything. They know marriage matters, and in their courage and conviction, they refused to jump off the cliff. Cowardly lawmakers who would go along with the majority on the Respect for Marriage Act would take another hacksaw to the lives and business of these two and so many others like them, whose First Amendment rights would just be further eroded by contrived rights.

Second, it isnt a slippery-slope fallacy to recognize the ways in which the goalposts have shifted since Obergefell. What was once two consenting adults in the bedroom has become in-your-face, LGBT-positive programming for schoolchildren. The right to marry has become the right to adopt a child. And accept us has become affirm us. So far, anywhere sexual orientation has come to be foisted on the public, gender identity is sure to follow, and theres no reason to believe Congress codifying a federal right to marry wont spawn a federal right to any sex-specific space you so choose or the castration of children, doctors consciences be damned.

There isnt room here to rehash all the reasons why marriages with one man and one woman who bear children together are the best building blocks for society, nor to get into all the reasons Christians must be firm on the sanctity of the institution amid character assassinations. But our lawmakers in Washington would be wise to remember that going along to get along has never been the true conservatives way. And just because everyone is hurling themselves off the cliff doesnt mean you should too.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Excerpt from:

As With Cliff-Jumping, So With Gay Marriage: Resist The Majority - The Federalist

New polling from the Judicial Crisis Network and CRC Research suggests that American voters largely agree that political violence is not a solution to the problems facing the nation today. Despite an overwhelming number of voters who want the Department of Justice to intervene against all forms of political violence, Attorney General Merrick Garland is picking and choosing which acts of intimidation will be prosecuted based on what might benefit the Democratic regime.

Of the 1,600 registered voters surveyed in July, 58 percent said Garland should enforce federal law prohibiting protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices, with only 30 percent saying he should not. An even higher number, 60 percent, believe President Joe Biden should condemn those kinds of actions as well.

Both Democrats, 52 percent, and Republicans, 71 percent, agree that seeking other ways to disrupt the justices private lives undermines democracy and should not be tolerated. Eighty-five percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats also say that offering bounties for tips about where justices are dining is extreme and goes to[o] far.

Yet, the same DOJ that rushed tocapitalize on the National School Boards Associations collusion with the Biden White House to smear concerned parents as domestic terrorists remained largely unresponsive to the attacks on Republican-nominated justices.

Despite the fact that 84 percent of registered voters agree that those who engage in acts of vandalism and violence against pregnancy resource centers and churches should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, Garland also refused to take action against the widespread assaults on pro-life Americans and their property.

Instead of listening to the demands from senators, faith groups, and pro-lifers for the DOJ to do its job, Civil Rights Division Chief Kristen Clarke, a top DOJ official, smeared pregnancy centers as fake clinics that are harmful and predatory, all Democrat talking points.

Additionally, Garland released a statement publicly disagreeing with the Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson decision. That particular statement only devoted two sentences to announcing that the DOJ will not tolerate violence and threats of violence. Meanwhile, following the Dobbs leak and Garlands refusal to enforce the federal law prohibiting protests at justices homes, a pro-abortion fanatic had shown up at Justice Brett Kavanaughs house to assassinate him.

While violent leftists called for an open season on pro-lifers, the Supreme Court, and its justices, Garland bragged about watching Democrats Jan. 6 show-trial hearings and reassured the corrupt corporate media that his prosecutors were doing the same.

Garlands lack of urgency about the lefts political violence in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, even as the AG prepares to indict his partys main political opposition and those who support him, strongly contrasts with how voters feel the DOJ should operate.

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

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

Americans Want Justice But Garland Is Busy Trying To Indict Trump - The Federalist

Democrats love to talk about democracy mostly about how its under threat from Republicans and Christian nationalists and anyone who opposes their agenda. But at least on a rhetorical level, they seem to cherish democracy and rightly think that a government of the people, by the people is the surest safeguard against tyranny.

In practice, though, they hate democracy and will use every tool at their disposal to subvert and destroy it. Hardly a day goes by that Democrats dont proclaim as much by their actions. Just look at their response to the Supreme Court overturningRoe v. Wadelast month, which triggered laws in more than a dozen states banning or placing new restrictions on abortion. Voters in those states elected the people who passed these new laws, which in many cases are broadly popular. By overturningRoe, the court breathed new life into the democratic process, returning an issue to the American people that an earlier Supreme Court had snatched away from them.

But Democrats dont really want democracy when it comes to abortion, which they consider sacrosanct. They have no qualms about protecting it from regulations by state lawmakers through the raw exercise of federal executive power, if need be. This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland threatened to sue states that have outlawed or restricted abortion since the end ofRoe, and he also said the Justice Department would try to get a judge to tossa Texas lawsuitthat would block newly issued rules from the Biden administrations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services forcing doctors to perform abortions in emergency rooms.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Garlands DOJ said last week it hadlaunched a special task forceto evaluate state laws that hinder womens ability to seek abortions in other states where the procedure remains legal or that ban federally approved medication that terminates a pregnancy. The task force will also oppose state efforts to penalize federal employees who perform abortions authorized by federal law.

What could that mean? Well, take a look at the lawsuit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just filed against HHS. The administration is trying to use the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force ER doctors to perform abortions, even if it contravenes state laws outlawing the procedure. EMTALA was passed in 1986 as a way to prevent patient dumping, or turning away people who couldnt pay, and it requires hospitals that receive Medicare money (which today is all of them) to treat people who show up at an ER in need of emergency treatment.

The Texas lawsuit argues the Biden administration is trying to use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic, and that EMTALA does not authorize and has never authorized the federal government to compel healthcare providers to perform abortions.

Garland and HHS claim that EMTALA preempts state law, but its unclear what that means in the context of the new HHS rules. If a state legislature passed a law saying that emergency rooms are prohibited from treating patients who have no health insurance, then yes, EMTALA would preempt that.

But as Paxtons lawsuit rightly notes, the law says nothing about abortion, nor does it say anything about which specific treatments a hospital ER must administer. It only states that Medicare-participating hospitals have to provide stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions, and it specifically defines both of those terms in the statute.

For Democrats, though, laws passed by representatives of the people dont carry as much weight as rule by administrative fiat. On July 11, the Biden administrations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued guidance purportedly reminding hospitals of their obligations under EMTALA. But the guidance was much more than a reminder, and it was accompanied bya letterfrom HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra that amounted to an abortion mandate for hospitals, asserting powers under EMTALA that simply dont exist anywhere in federal law.

First, Becerras letter claims that if an ER doctor determines that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve [an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA], the physician must provide that treatment.

But this is nothing more than a cheap word game. Abortion isnt a stabilizing treatment, and nowhere in federal law is it construed as such. Becerra is conflating Democrats loose rhetoric about abortion that its reproductive healthcare or womens health with the straightforward reality of the federal EMTALA statute, which says nothing about abortion and, to the contrary, specifically includes a mention of an emergency medical condition as one that threatens the life of an unborn child.

Second, Becerras false claim that EMTALA preempts state abortion laws is contradicted by the plain language of the law itself, which says it doesnt preempt state law except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement of EMTALA. But abortion is not a requirement of EMTALA and doesnt even fit the laws definition of stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition.

In a decent country, Texas would easily win this lawsuit and the Justice Department would never step in to try to get it thrown out. But Democrats are committed to subverting the democratic process at both the state and federal level in order to preserve some shred of their abortion regime. Theyre trying to preempt state laws they dont like by twisting the meaning of federal laws that dont have anything to say about abortion.

Remember that the next time you hear President Biden or some other leading Democrat talk about threats to democracy. They dont care about democracy, they care about power. And they will use every ounce of it they have to advance their policies the will of the people be damned.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Excerpt from:

Democrats Hate Democracy When It Comes To Abortion - The Federalist

Perry Bacon Jr. which is the name of a Washington Post writer, not a sandwich at Arbys has managed to have the dumbest excuse to date for why Joe Bidens approval numbers are somewhere between bad and get this man out of the White House right now before he kills us all.

Bacon wrote on Monday, presumably with a straight face, that a major factor driving the presidents approval ratings to lower than Donald Trumps is that the news medias coverage has been anti-Biden. He actually said that.

In the first few months of 2021, many in the media focused on narratives that seemed like they could turn into big anti-Biden stories but didnt pan out, wrote Perry. By anti-Biden stories, he meant the few times reporters asked the president why vaccines were so slow to distribute and whether he planned to do anything to stem the tide of obscene numbers of migrants illegally crossing the southern border.

Its apparently anti-Biden to inquire whether he actually plans to do anything about our most urgent problems.

But, Perry said, it was the disastrous and fatal withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that really did Biden in with the press. Afghanistan was an important turning point in media coverage for two reasons, he wrote. One, it provided journalists the big anti-Biden story that I think many of them were desperate to find. And it drove down Bidens popularity with the public, giving the media justification for even more coverage that cast the president as struggling.

Ah, yes! Remember the days of yore when the media were so obviously desperate to find a reason to kneecap Biden. The memories are fond.

Its preposterous. Even now, media coverage of the Biden administration is relegated to one-minute news briefs about the president and Kamala Harriss latest screw-ups, only between hour-long segments about the Jan. 6 House hearings.

Perry wrote that he would like for the press to cover Biden more positively.

Hey guys, could you put a positive spin on the historic inflation, the new war that Biden is marching us toward, and the record-high gas prices? That would be swell.

Biden isnt where he is by a stroke of bad luck. His approval rating isnt embarrassingly low because reporters arent giving him enough credit. And his own partys voters arent on their knees praying he doesnt run for a second term because journalists havent properly shown them the silver lining.

Biden isnt the victim of an awful press. Theyre the ones who sold him to America. Were the victims of the media and his presidency.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

View post:

We're All Struggling Because Of Biden, Not The Other Way Around - The Federalist

Democrats are foolishly trying to win the abortion debate. Now that the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision has overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters have to make their case to the people and their representatives, rather than judges. But many of them have apparently forgotten that they win the argument by avoiding it.

This strategy was perfected by President Bill Clintons model of rhetorical moderation joined to legal extremism. Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and then he opposed any limits on it. And Roe, along with a compliant media, let him and his party get away with this, because they could let the courts do most of the dirty work. Now that they dont have that shield they are struggling.

It is normal to want to justify ones views, but it is often political malpractice. With regard to abortion, the majority position on abortion is inconsistent. The average American supports legal abortion early in pregnancy, wants it restricted or banned by the second trimester and really, really doesnt want to think about it. New York Times readers might like the idea of a comedy special about abortion, but most Americans are repulsed by it.

These voters in the middle see abortion as a sometimes necessary evil, or at least an expedient one. They find a consistent pro-life ethic uncomfortable and impractical, but they view a consistent pro-abortion ethic of late-term abortion on demand without apology as horrible. These voters tended to have a poor understanding of the Supreme Courts abortion rulings, which is why polls often showed majority support both for Roe and for abortion restrictions prohibited by Roe, such as a ban on elective abortion after 15 weeks.

Now, the pro-abortion side is trying to find a consistent, winning argument, not realizing that the attempt is a losing effort. Swing voters in the mushy middle on abortion usually vote on other issues, and the rhetoric being used to make the case for unrestricted abortion is alienating to them.

As momentous as the Dobbs decision was, most voters are more concerned with soaring inflation, a looming recession, and other economic woes. Nonetheless, Democratic leaders and activists are determined to push abortion to the fore. The New York Times alone has published multiple columns declaring that running on abortion will pave the way for Democratic victory.

This is nonsense, though in the face of impending midterm disaster, and saddled with a president who is about as popular as gonorrhea, Democrats might believe that their best chance to limit their losses is to rally their base by focusing on abortion and other social issues. This would explain House Dems voting repeatedly for radical pro-abortion bills that they know will fail in the Senate, and the attacks by Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on pro-life pregnancy resource centers.

But even if this culture war strategy staunches the immediate electoral bleeding, it may set Democrats up for problems in the future. In particular, it will likely accelerate the realignment in which Dems gain educated whites at the loss of working class and minority voters, especially Hispanics. Even when Dems work hard to frame the issue in ways favorable to them, they are still focusing on something that these voters are not that concerned with right now.

Democrats also become ridiculous when their abortion absolutism combines with their woke pieties. Democrats are eager to insist that pregnant men have a right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand until birth. But as Megan McArdle recently tries to warn them, most Americans think third-trimester unborn babies have value and that it is women who get pregnant.

Furthermore, the left justifies its pro-abortion extremism using rhetoric derived from a worldview that is alien to the lived experience of most moderate voters. Phrases such as forced birth and bodily autonomy are popular with the online left, but they reveal a perspective that sees nature as a prison and unchosen obligations as slavery. Consequently, they necessarily view female fertility, with its natural dependencies and vulnerabilities, as a burden to be suppressed, and they want the state to take over and professionalize the duties of providing care to dependents.

But the voters fleeing the Democratic coalition do not live with the presumptions that female embodiment is imprisoning, that dependence is despicable, and that we should be free from unchosen obligations. Though they may not have a coherent, developed theory of dependence and duty, their moral intuitions are not oriented toward radical individualism and personal autonomy. Likewise, though they may not have a consistent pro-life philosophy, they know that a life of love in family and community requires fulfilling duties of care toward dependents.

And they know that the future of families and communities depends upon those who are dependent. This is most obvious with children, but the realities of interdependence extend to all of us. All of us are dependent for much of our lives, and even our moments of apparent independence are less than they seem. And we are always dependent on others for what is best in this life, for the love and kindness and friendships that are necessary for human flourishing.

The lefts concern for solidarity has been swallowed up by its radicalism, especially on abortion. Its electoral prospects might suffer the same fate, as pro-abortion extremism pushes Democrats to ignore voters concerns in favor of pushing unpopular positions justified by alienating rhetoric.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See original here:

Post-Roe, The Pro-Abortion Crowd Must Defend The Indefensible - The Federalist

The Associated Press spread disinformation on Tuesday in its blind adoption of the Jan. 6 Committees made-up timeline of the Capitol riot.

In a preview of Thursdays hearing, which is set to feature two former White House aides during prime time, the AP reported that the pair will offer new details about President Donald Trumps conduct as a mob of supporters overwhelmed Capitol Police.

Previous hearings have detailed chaos in the White House and aides and outsiders were begging the president to tell the rioters to leave, the AP wrote, before adding (emphasis added),

But he waited more than three hours to do so, and there are still many unanswered questions about what exactly he was doing and saying as the violence unfolded.

The wire services Tuesday reporting was already picked up by the Los Angeles Times. Trumps supposed three-hour delay, however, which has been repeatedly highlighted by members of the Jan. 6 Committee, is contradicted by detailed timelines from both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

According to the Times, the first barriers of the Capitol building were breached at 2:13 p.m. The Washington Post timestamps the first break in at 2:15 p.m. Trumps first tweet addressing the rioters was published at 2:38 p.m., with the president pleading for peace after just 23 minutes.

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement, Trump wrote. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

About 30 minutes later, Trump addressed the demonstrators again on the same platform.

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! the president wrote. Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

At 4:17 p.m., or two hours after the first barriers were breached, the president tweeted out a video demanding that rioters leave the Capitol a video that Twitter promptly removed.

False claims of a three-hour delay come directly from the Jan. 6 Committee itself. In December, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney charged the president with waiting 187 minutes and said he refused to act while demonstrators swarmed the Capitol. In an interview with ABC News last week outlining plans for the upcoming hearing, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., explained that members will comb through those 187 minutes.

The New York Times regurgitated that same false timeline on Friday, headlining its own preview coverage of the latest prime time show trial with, Jan. 6 Panel to Dissect Trumps 187 Minutes of Inaction During Riot. The Washington Posts Jennifer Rubin followed suit on Tuesday with a piece titled, Why we should care about the 187 minutes.

The House Jan. 6 select committee on Thursday will provide a blow-by-blow account of the 187 minutes that passed during the Capitol siege in which Donald Trump did nothing to rescue lawmakers and his own vice president from the mob he unleashed, Rubin wrote. The Post columnist made no mention of the presidents tweets during those 187 minutes, during which time she claims he did nothing.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See the original post:

AP Spreads Disinformation With J6 Committee's Fake Timeline - The Federalist

A federal judge ordered on Friday that the Biden administration cannot force its false definition of sex on schools in 20 states at least for now.

After the Department of Education published a rule redefining sex under Title IX to include so-called gender identity, a coalition of 20 states sued in federal court. On Friday, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from enforcing the rule in those states until the lawsuit is resolved.

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Under the new rule, the Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights would enforce Title IX also to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

A fact sheet from the Civil Rights Office gives examples of incidents it could investigate. One involves a male student not being allowed to use the girls restroom or try out for the girls cheerleading team.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Christiana Kiefer told The Federalist that this interpretation of Title IX is unlawful because the executive branch does not have the power to rewrite federal law.

Kiefer said it is also harmful, particularly to girls. It harms all students, but especially young women, in that it opens up their private spaces their locker rooms, shower facilities, potentially overnight trip accommodations, and yes, their womens sports teams to members of the opposite sex if they do nothing more than simply identify as female, Kiefer said, noting that Alliance Defending Freedom filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International and three female athletes at public schools.

The administrations interpretation of Title IX relies on the Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that an employee could not be fired just for being homosexual or transgender. Bostock, however, only dealt with Title VII, not Title IX, the lawsuit points out.

The Department of Educations rule followed an executive order last January stating the Biden administrations policy to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

That order told the federal agencies to consider changing their rules and served as the basis for a U.S. Department of Agriculture policy requiring schools to allow boys into girls bathrooms in order to get federal funding for school lunches, as The Federalist previously reported.

According to Kiefer, how the case might affect actions it doesnt directly challenge such as the USDA policy will depend on how broadly the court rules. In the meantime, the administration cannot enforce the Department of Educations interpretation of Title IX against the 20 states that challenged it.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III said in a press release, We are thankful the Court put a stop to it, maintained the status quo as the lawsuit proceeds, and reminded the federal government it cannot direct its agencies to rewrite the law.

Editors note: This article has been updated to reflect that the comments attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner were made by Senior Counsel Christiana Kiefer.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Follow this link:

Judge Prevents DOE From Forcing Title IX Trans Perversion On 20 States - The Federalist