Category Archives: Federalist

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll out Wednesday noted a record low approval rating for President Joe Biden at just 36 percent approval, his lowest since taking office, with support from independents especially dissipating. A full 58 percent of registered voters disapprove of the presidents job, with 44 percent strongly disapproving.

Nearly half of registered independent voters 46 percent to be exact say they strongly disapprove of the job Biden is doing, combined with 19 percent who simply said they disapprove of his performance for a total disapproval rating of more than 65 percent from independents. Thats a huge shift from a year ago when nearly half of independents approved of Biden. Now, only 28 percent approve.

Bidens 36 percent approval rating from voters overall reflects a 4 percent slip since the end of June. With only 12 percent of voters saying they strongly approve of the job he is doing, almost four times that number strongly disapprove, at 44 percent.

Even PBS had to admit that Bidens numbers are trending more negative than any other modern president in a midterm cycle, according to 538s tracking of approval rating polling averages.

Another NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll from April 2022 gathered that independents favor Republican candidates over Democrat candidates by 7 percentage points (45 percent compared to 38 percent) ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The poll noted that pluralities of Americans think Republicans are better equipped to deal with a plurality of issues, such as the economy and inflation, gun laws, and curbing crime.

Elise McCue is an intern at The Federalist and student majoring in multimedia journalism and professional and technical writing. She also reports on the Southwest Virginia music scene for The Roanoke Times. You can follow her on twitter @elisemccue or contact her at mccueelise@gmail.com

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Follow this link:

Poll: Biden's Approval Rating Just Hit Another Record Low - The Federalist

Prince-in-name-only Harry Windsor spoke at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City Monday as part of the UNs honoring the late Nelson Mandela, South Africas freedom fighter and president.

Evidently, it was too much for Harry to stay focused on Mandelas heroic life story, a man who overcame long-time political imprisonment to become the first black leader of the Republic of South Africa. That is plenty for a 15-minute speech.

Rather, he preened about democracy and climate change, about which he knows little and is disqualified from lecturing, considering his own lifestyle.

From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom, Harry observed, in a not-subtle reference to the U.S. Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson decision on abortion, issued last month.

Thus, did he equate the cruel Russian war against Ukraine to the Courts overturning Roe v. Wade, the 49-year-old ruling that abrogated 46 state laws to instead allow unfettered abortion.

Lost on Harry is that the Supreme Court returned abortion policy to the democratic process in state legislatures, that is, determined by elected officials the same as it exists in Britain and throughout Europe. That democratic process has resulted in most European nations having restrictions on abortion at earlier stages of pregnancy (from 10 to 14 weeks), than in the U.S. during the Roe abortion era.

Throughout her 70-year reign, Queen Elizabeth II had more dignity in her royal fingernail than her virtue-signaling grandson. Attacking her nations closest global ally was unthinkable, considering her own witness to the blood and treasure sacrificed by Americans for democracy and freedom.

Then there was climate change, one of the vanity projects of Harry and his wife, Meghan, which he claimed was wreaking havoc on the planet as evidenced by the water rising all around us.

The right thing to do is not up for debate, and neither is the science, declared the prince. The only question is whether we will be brave enough and wise enough to do what is necessary.

Typical of wealthy and pampered climate alarmists, Harry provided neither science nor reality about this ubiquitous climate havoc. Rather, he echoed his fellow elites and political hucksters to squash debate one of the central features of democracy and freedom obtuse to irony or self-awareness.

Attempting to stop the planets climate from ever-changing is a colossal fools errand that brings serious drawbacks. They include extensive mining required for electric vehicle battery components; fossil fuels to manufacture and maintain solar panels and wind turbines; the toxic residue from their disposal; and despoiling enormous virgin land mass necessary to approach displacing oil and gas, to name a few. Moreover, large industrial nations, China, India, et.al., are not cooperating in Harrys crusade and that of the Climate Industrial Complex of celebrities, bureaucrats, and NGOs, which makes the entirety of this agenda fruitless.

Taking Harrys climate narcissism at face value, are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex themselves brave and wise enough to do what is necessary to curtail climate change?

Harry and Meghan could start by relinquishing their 16-room mansion in the Montecito enclave of Santa Barbara, California, and downsize to accommodate their two maximum children, still without needing bunk beds. Last year the couple received an award from the group Population Matters for not having more children to add to the planets CO2 emissions. Then why power a mansion large enough to house a Cub Scout pack?

As to air travel, the Duke and Duchess long ago dissed the plea from Friends of the Earth to forgo private planes. No bravery or wisdom from the faux royals there, either.

It is fitting Prince Harry is no longer a working member of the British Royal Family. He has long since become a self-serving embarrassment in his myriad of pursuits. Harry and Megan will press on hungry for attention and relevance, ever impervious, as they retain their vapid titles denoting a pretend monarchical fiefdom eight time zones away from them.

Peter Murphy is Senior Fellow at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a Washington, D.C.-based not-for-profit entity that promotes free-market, technological solutions to environment and energy challenges.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the original:

Prince Harry Spews Climate Hypocrisy In United Nations Address - The Federalist

For a year, the Biden administration told Americans inflation wasnt real. Then it was transitory. Then it was sticky. Then inflation was miraculously real but perfectly expected as a result of Covid-19 workplace lockdowns. Then it was an unfortunate but necessary cost for patriotic Americans to pay in defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression. Now inflation has risen to an annual rate of 9.1 percent, the highest in more than 40 years.

Tucker Carlson has been outlining how Joe Bidens Green New Deal energy policies not Russias war in Ukraine or Covid-19s economic fallout are directly responsible for our current economic crisis. In following the World Economic Forums Build Back Better socialist blueprint for transitioning the economy from one relying on the hydrocarbon energies of oil, coal, and natural gas to one based on insufficient supplies of wind and solar energies, manufacturing and transportation costs have skyrocketed.

Add to this destabilizing energy shift the WEF and Green New Deals concerted efforts to shift the global food supply from one based on high-yield, fertilizer-intensive crop farming and traditional cattle and poultry production to a new sustainable diet of insects and lab-grown synthetic meats, and it is clear that the Build Back Better agenda touches every part of an individuals daily life. In one fell swoop, Davos devotees are attempting to overhaul both the energy sources undergirding the global economy and the energy sources that fuel every human being.

One of the principal effects of this forced paradigm shift in energy and food production is todays runaway inflation. If the supplies of relatively inexpensive sources of hydrocarbon energy are reduced on the global market, then everything dependent on hydrocarbon energy increases in price. From the operational overhead required to keep commodity and manufacturing plants running to the international shipping and transcontinental transport costs required to move finished products across the world, everything becomes more expensive.

At each stage of the process of extracting raw materials, producing a product for market, and putting that product in a consumers home, rising green energy costs cascade to create skyrocketing inflation. Likewise, when agricultural and livestock farming are heavily regulated in accordance with Green New Deal climate change goals, then not only does food become more expensive, it also becomes more scarce. Inflation and food insecurity are the natural results.

The Great Reset, however, is not occurring in a vacuum. Unsuspecting citizens may be the guinea pigs forced to endure the World Economic Forums agenda, but they do not lack agency of their own. Hunger and loss of savings tend to fracture societies, and not surprisingly, chaos and carnage are now on the rise.

In Sri Lanka, the costs of food and fuel have gotten so high that the island country has nearly collapsed. The president has fled, the prime minister has promised to resign, the socialist nation is in a state of emergency, and fed-up citizens have taken over much of the capital. It is the starkest warning yet to the Build Back Better zealots how devastating for ordinary citizens their forced experiment in social engineering has become.

In the Netherlands, farmers protesting government plans to regulate their livelihoods out of existence and seize their farms have fought back by blocking main thoroughfares with their tractors and keeping supermarket shelves relatively bare. Already, similar protests have popped up in Italy, Poland, and Germany.

Castro-loving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have succeeded in using the iron fists of government force and bank account seizures to dismantle Canadian truckers Freedom Convoy protests against experimental vaccine mandates earlier this year, but the current spate of public demonstrations against historic food and fuel costs show few signs of being similarly squashed.

While Germany prepares to restrict home heating at night and ration hot water, some industry leaders are already warning that social peace is in great danger. If tempers are running hot today, they are certain to go nuclear in the near future, as French and German leaders have warned their populations to prepare for a total cut-off of Russian gas that promises to exacerbate business bankruptcies and extend personal economic ruin. Only adding to the uncertainty of this approaching cataclysm, Europes border forces are reportedly bracing for waves of hungry illegal immigrants heading their way during what is inarguably transforming into a global food crisis.

Riots, famines, societal collapse, and cultural invasion the globalists Great Reset agenda has created the perfect storm of economic insecurity and national instability.

All of this leads to an important question: If this Build Back Better project to demolish and reconstruct the Wests economic foundations ends up blowing up right in the globalists faces, what will they do next?

In Sri Lanka, the president hightailed it out of town and headed for paradise in the nearby Maldives. If Europe descends into conflict or outright rebellion, however, where will the World Economic Forums leaders hide? Is there someplace left in the world still unscathed from the predictable consequences of their disastrous actions?

J.B. Shurk is a freedom-minded, anti-establishment, sometimes unorthodox, committed generalist and a proud American from Daniel Boone country.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continued here:

Sri Lanka Is First To Topple In Globalists' Green Energy House Of Cards - The Federalist

As a consular officer overseas, I met dozens of Brittney Griners American citizens, from all walks of life, who find themselves on the wrong end of a foreign legal system far from home.

Despite what Phoenix Mercury coach Vanessa Nygaard might claim, Griners continued detention in Russia has nothing to do with a lack of U.S. government interest in bringing her home. It makes no difference that shes a woman, black, or gay, or even that shes one of the few WNBA players who can dunk. It also doesnt matter for whom she voted.

The fact of the matter is: There are limits to what American diplomacy can do for U.S. citizens who travel to foreign countries and run afoul of their laws.

When arrested abroad, an Americans first call is often to consular officers. Their expectations tend to be out of line with what our diplomats are allowed or supposed to do to help them.

The rules governing diplomatic intervention are spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, aka the FAM, which is the operational bible for U.S. consular officers at more than 300 foreign posts from Albania to Zambia. According to the FAM, consular officers should visit the arrested American citizen as soon as possible after learning of the arrest.

That visit is to deliver the hard truth: Youre not in Kansas anymore. Give the arrestee a realistic and positive understanding of your interest in and responsibility for a U.S. citizen or national in this situation, officers are told, and make clear to the prisoner that the judicial system and personal rights he or she enjoyed in the United States do not apply abroad.

The FAM advises that it is only fair to curb the prisoners expectations that consular assistance will result in extraordinary intervention or miraculous remedies.

So what can embassy officers do?

They will visit you shortly after being informed of your arrest and then every few months during your trial. They will try to prevent you from being abused in custody. They will help you find a lawyer (at your expense). And they will monitor the progress of your case, so the host government knows Uncle Sam is watching. In many countries, this is an incentive for them to carry out a fair process. In Russia, North Korea, or Yemen? Not so much.

Over the span of nearly 25 years, I visited or helped a variety of Americans in jail for crimes ranging from drugs to theft to assault. Here are some points Id advise travelers to keep in mind.

First, remember its their country, their rules. In Thailand, Americans can expect long jail sentences under harsh conditions, heavy fines, or even execution for possessing, using, or trafficking in illegal drugs. Visitors there should respect religious mores and never insult the king. When in doubt, err on the side of caution: One American was even arrested for posting a bad review of a Thai hotel.

In Dubai last year, a group of foreign models got six months in jail for posing nude for photos on a hotel balcony. In Singapore in the 1990s, American high-schooler Michael Fay was sentenced to six strokes of a cane for vandalizing cars.

Second, if you are at risk of extradition or worse by a foreign country, think before going somewhere they might be able to get you. After all, some rulers have long arms. Weve seen Russian exiles poisoned in Britain. Rwandans opposed to the government or connected with the genocide have died in mysterious circumstances in various countries, and Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside a Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018.

Third, if you are going overseas to fight for another country, you are on your own. Missing American veteran Grady Kurpasi may have been killed by Russians while he was with Ukrainian forces a few months ago. According to the Washington Post, his family accused the Biden administration of inaction on his behalf, but in truth, there is little the U.S. can do to aid a private citizen acting as a mercenary or volunteer in a war between two foreign powers.

The Geneva Convention extends prisoner of war status to volunteers in certain conditions, but the Russians have made it clear that they will not give those protections to Americans fighting in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces are also prosecuting Russian soldiers for war crimes in real time. Due, let alone fair, process is a rare thing in wartime.

At the time of her arrest, Griner was in Russia playing her seventh season with the Russian womens team UMMC Ekaterinburg. She has gone well above the consular level, writing to President Biden and pleading for his help.

In an interview with CBS News, Vice President Harris hinted that something was happening behind the scenes. That may be related to reports that former governor and Clinton appointee turned ace hostage-releaser Bill Richardson might be dispatched to negotiate a deal with the Russians.

Harris also implied that Griner was being unlawfully detained. The part of the FAM that deals with wrongful arrests is for government eyes only. This much I can say: While it contains some additional diplomatic tools, it has no magic bullets.

The State Department has an office that deals with Americans wrongfully detained, such as for political reasons. But Griner pled guilty to the charge (of bringing in a minuscule amount of hashish oil in a vape cartridge) and has seemingly been treated in accordance with Russian law, harsh though it is.

In Russia, judges decide all but the most serious cases, and the acquittal rate is under 1 percent. Unfortunately for Griner, she picked the wrong time and the wrong place to carry that tiny amount of cannabis oil. She was arrested on Feb. 17, and Russia invaded Ukraine a week later, making Griner an accidental chip in a diplomatic great game. Because of that, she may face more time in what the State Departments Human Rights Report calls often harsh and life threatening Russian prison conditions.

The hard truth is that Americans overseas are subject to foreign laws, just like foreigners are over here. Americans arrested and accused of crimes in other countries have to work through those legal systems the best they can. Short of sending SEAL Team Six, arranging a prisoner exchange, or cutting a secret deal giving the other country something it wants, there is little a U.S. president can do in cases where a foreign government isnt amenable to friendly persuasion.

In Michael Fays case, then-president Clinton appealed to the Singapore government a friendly one but only managed to reduce the sentence by two strokes of the cane. More hopefully, Richardson has a good track record of negotiating the release of Americans held in unfriendly places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. If he fails, theres always the Rev. Al Sharpton, who plans a pastoral visit to Griner soon.

For most Americans, especially those with no fame or connections, theres no way to completely avoid the risk of being arrested overseas, sometimes on spurious charges. Still, the more you can follow the letter of a foreign countrys law particularly with regard to drugs and public behavior the safer youll be.

A former State Department official, Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundations Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Affairs.

Read this article:

Brittney Griner Could Have Avoided Jail By Following The Law - The Federalist

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Nydia Velzquez, D-N.Y., and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., are pushing the Puerto Rico Status Act, which could grant the territory double benefits of independence and U.S. citizenship for life.

The draft of the bill seeks to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status.

Puerto Ricos most widely circulated newspaper, El Nuevo Dia, stated Wednesday that the Democratic leadership and Puerto Rican Federal legislators reached a final agreement last night on the bill that will be introduced in the House of Representatives to propose a Federal plebiscite between statehood, free association and independence.

The possible options proposed in the bill for Puerto Rico are statehood, independence, or a variation of independence with free association with the United States. Three nations currently have this latter status the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands but the U.S. did not give these nations the option of independence with U.S. citizenship.

The bills options do not include maintaining Puerto Ricos current status as a U.S. territory. If passed, more than 3 million Puerto Ricans will maintain both their U.S. and Puerto Rican citizenship. They will continue to reap financial benefits funded by taxpayer dollars without having to pay any taxes to the United States government.

The bill will also provide an objective, non-partisan, federally funded education campaign leading up to the vote, Rep. Velzquez said in a May press conference. It authorizes the necessary funds to carry out a non-partisan voter education campaign and a national plebiscite and if necessary, a run-off plebiscite.

In addition to citizenship, this bill under both independence options would give the new nation of Puerto Rico a block grant equal to all the monies granted to the territory or its citizens during the year before nationhood for ten years, explained journalist Alice Stewart. This provision would make the value greater than current spending because there would be no Federal requirements. Finally, after year eleven, the grant would supposedly be reduced by 10% a year.

If the bill passes, it schedules a plebiscite vote in Puerto Rico for Nov. 5, 2023. If no majority consensus is reached, Puerto Ricos status would be decided during a March 2024 runoff election. There have been no hearings yet on this bill.

If its citizens so choose, its fine for the United States to grant Puerto Rico its independence, but the bills overly gratuitous combination of independence plus U.S. dollars and citizenship is another example of Democrats prioritizing other interests when they should be combatting their own self-made crises at home.

This is not a new concept to left-wing lawmakers as they join Biden in spending taxpayers money on Ukraine while Americans suffer from record inflation. The Puerto Rico Status Act means more federal grants for Puerto Rico and more taxpayer dollars allocated to non-American interests, while the economic needs of American citizens are put on the back burner once again.

Elise McCue is an intern at The Federalist and student majoring in multimedia journalism and professional and technical writing. She also reports on the Southwest Virginia music scene for The Roanoke Times. You can follow her on twitter @elisemccue or contact her at mccueelise@gmail.com

Read more:

Democrat Bill Would Offer Puerto Rico All U.S. Benefits And No Obligations - The Federalist

The Supreme Courts ruling on the Dobbs case overturning Roe vs. Wade was the most refreshing and long-fought conservative culture war win in our lifetime. The pro-life activists responsible for this victory have established the path by which campaigns for social change must be patterned. Thats especially true for those still willing to fight the battle for marriage.

There are myriad similarities between the 1973 SCOTUS decision legalizing abortion, and their 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage. Both decisions inflicted severe damage on the fundamental rights of children. Roe violates a childs right to life. Obergefell is a subversive violation of a childs right to their mother and father.

Many conservatives fail to ride the love is love thought train to the redefinition of parenthood station. Before Obergefell, marriage and parenthood laws, almost exclusively, related to the well-being of children. In fact, the only reason the state has traditionally had any interest in marriage is that most marriages produce children. Without marriage, children are raised fatherless and experience lifelong struggles. Making men and women interchangeable in parenting results in the violation of a childs right to the two people responsible for their existence. Unfortunately, pro-traditional marriage advocates failed to establish this fighting Obergefell.

Both pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage arguments focus on adult desire. Feelings are centerstage in all pro-choice arguments theyre not ready to parent, abortion made their Golden Globe possible, and theyve got a devastating prenatal diagnosis. Feelings drive the arguments for gay marriage as well, gay and lesbian adults suffering, their coming out backstory, desperately wanting a family, and their longing for a State-validated partnership.

Necessarily, conversations around both issues eschewed focus from the children. Pro-abortionists disavow the humanity of the unborn, resorting to clump of cells talking points or reproductive healthcare euphemisms. Despite our amicus brief intended to draw the courts attention to the suffering of children with gay parents, Obergefell proponents successfully argued that marriage has nothing to do with kids.

These SCOTUS rulings were decided on the basis that adult desires are rights; mothers possess the right to choose, and LGBT folks have a right to marry. But when adult desire masquerades as a right, children are forced to sacrifice their legitimate rights.

The similarities of these two cases illustrate that those seeking to rebuild a flourishing marriage culture should follow the winning tactics of the pro-life movement.

Our focus must be on children. Pro-lifers empathize with women in unplanned pregnancies, and they didnt allow adult feelings to take center stage, they always focused the conversation on the child. When faced with statements like, Im not prepared to parent, the pro-life response was When does human life begin? Reorienting the conversation toward the childs right to life kept the spotlight on the real victim of bad personal and policy decisions.

The same is true for effective marriage arguments. Pre-Obergefell, the religious right wailed about the horrors gay marriage would inflict on them. Wed have to bake a cake, arrange flowers, or photograph a same-sex wedding! The threat to religious liberty is, of course, deadly serious, but religious adults are not the victims of Obergefell. Children are.

In the wake of Obergefell, most are loathe to even acknowledge that children should be raised by a mother and father. According to the political zeitgeist, such blasphemy would constitute discrimination. Thus, traditional marriage advocates must shift tactics, we must make heart-changing, pro-marriage arguments based on the rights of children. Those who want to restore a flourishing marriage culture must empathize with gay adults, those struggling in their marriage, or considering sperm donation in the absence of Mr. Right, while remaining focused on the fact a childs right to their mother and father supersedes an adults sadness, struggles or loneliness.

If we are to see a Dobbs-like victory for marriage, we must become educated. It was the proliferation of hundreds of pro-life organizations which resulted in well-informed warriors capable of rebutting common pro-choice talking points like my body, my choice and it might be a human, but is it a person? counterpoints.

Them Before Us is the only non-profit devoted to defending childrens right to their mother and father. To win back public opinion and we need more organizations equipping pro-marriage warriors who are equally comfortable fielding questions like:

Opposition to gay marriage is just like opposition to interracial marriage.

If you really think family is so important then you must be against divorce.

Kids dont need moms and dads, they just need to be safe and loved.

Proponents of both abortion and gay marriage often appeal to edge cases, outliers like rape and incest or, so youd rather have a child languish in an orphanage than adopted by a gay couple? A solid pro-life and pro-marriage response requires readiness to respond to the rare exception argument. Just as the one percent of rape cases do not negate a childs right to life, the slim instances of a same-sex couple being the only option for an adoption do not justify rewriting parenthood law.

Most importantly, we need to follow the two-prong approach of changing hearts and changing laws. Pro-life advocates walked the walk when it came to supporting women in unplanned pregnancies. They changed hearts by volunteering at pregnancy resource centers and outdoing their liberal counterparts as adoptive and foster parents. They also had savvy legal minds searching for cracks in the law to limit pre-birth murder.

Similarly, the pro-traditional marriage crowd must change hearts by doing the hard work of keeping their own families intact, enfolding into their orbit the father-hungry neighbor boy with two moms, and proving that the pro-marriage position isnt grounded in animus by initiating a relationship with our LGBT neighbor. We also must incept creative legal action that will incentivize men to commit to the women they impregnate and thus restore the original function of the institution of marriage.

And finally, enough with cowardice. Pro-lifers were so confident that they were fighting for the most vulnerable that they were willing to pay the social cost. The pro-marriage crowd has been cowed, whispering and apologizing for their position in fear of being labeled anti-gay if they speak up on Facebook or at Thanksgiving dinner. No victory for marriage is possible until we can clearly articulate that marriage is a social justice issue for children; that we are failing to defend children when we fail to defend marriage.

The one major difference between the pro-life fight and the pro-marriage fight is child victims of abortion didnt live to tell how theyve been harmed. Child victims of bad marriage policy do. Their stories will be the most powerful tool in the fight to change hearts and change laws.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

View post:

Defenders Of Traditional Marriage Should Follow The Pro-Life Playbook - The Federalist

Abortion is marketed to Americans by activists and the corporate media as empowering for women. But its really an industry that not only profits off of the death of babies in the womb, but the sexual exploitation and abuse of women and girls.

One amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Courts recent Dobbs v. Jackson case noted that even though abortion is typically promoted as an expression of autonomous freedom, as if abortion represents an ideal of the self-possessed woman determining her future, it is often used as a tool for others to achieve their nefarious goals at the expense of women (and the children they carry).

Abortion is beloved by sexual traffickers and predators, by irresponsible males, by heartless employers, by parents placing their own reputation over their daughters wishes and their grandchildrens lives, and by eugenic and racist population planners. For pregnant women and girls, in these contexts at least, abortion is a bane, not a boon, the brief states.

The abortion industry makes money off of ending the lives of babies in utero. Lots of it. According to a recent report, abortion industry revenue has increased at an annualized rate of 2.0% to $3.7 billion over the five years to 2022 and become a $4 billion market. Not only do abortion giants such as Planned Parenthood rake in cash based on the lies that women must have a right to choose, but they also help keep another profitable, illicit industry alive: sex trafficking.

With more than 40.3 million victims globally, human trafficking is a big business worth at least $150 billion that just keeps growing. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime recently acknowledged that the pandemic made trafficking even harder to detect and has left victims struggling to obtain help and access to justice.

That type of sexual exploitation is only helped by the covert practices used in the abortion industry to end lives in the womb undetected. When trafficked women and young girls get pregnant, they lose their marketability and become liabilities to their pimps. When abused women and young girls get pregnant, they could open their abusers up to investigations and prosecutions.

For years, pro-life organizations and activists have raised questions about the role abortion facilities such as Planned Parenthood play in exacerbating this type of sex trafficking, exploitation, and abuse. After all, investigations have yielded plenty of evidence showing Planned Parenthood is notorious for enabling predators, ignoring child abuse, and covering up child trafficking for profit.

Abortion activists and even Planned Parenthood have repeatedly written off these concerns as dangerous claims but the statistics show otherwise.

A 2014 study from the Health Policy and Law Review of Loyola University Chicago found that more than half, 55.2 percent, of the 67 trafficking victims surveyed had at least one abortion (presumably forcibly) while they were being sold for sex. At least 29.9 percent said they had multiple abortions. Overall, the study found that there were 114 total abortions among the 67 victims.

Researchers noted that a majority of survivors sought healthcare at some point during the time they were trafficked. Nearly 30 percent of those victims went to Planned Parenthood, which apparently did not pick up on signs of abuse.

Many providers were unaware of the fact that they were treating a trafficking victim, and unaware of the force, fraud, and coercion involved in trafficking, the study concluded.

Yet, Planned Parenthood is still happily handing out abortions to girls 18 and under in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington without many questions asked.

As a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood advertises those states that dont require parental consent for minors to get abortions and encourages girls to call them for advice on how to circumvent their states notification mandates. The Biden White House similarly recommends teen girls to sources that encourage them to conceal their pregnancies, which are likely the result of some form of sexual abuse according to state consent laws, from their parents.

To be fair, Planned Parenthood was founded with bad intentions in mind. Planned Parenthood recently tried to disavow its founder Margaret Sanger and her racist past but that hasnt stopped them from profiting off of the system of on-demand abortions she created a system that deliberately and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

Sound familiar? Because thats what sex trafficking does too. While sexual exploitation is found in every state, sex, race, and age group, it disproportionately affects runaway and homeless youth, those with abuse-laden and traumatic pasts, and people struggling financially.

Those are the same kinds of young people Planned Parenthood targets with their abortion propaganda. As a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood proudly profits from it.

Planned Parenthood is known to perform abortions on trafficking and abuse victims, women and girls who are likely candidates for forced abortions, plain and simple. Not only that, but Planned Parenthoods incessant attempts to solidify no-questions-asked abortions as a normalized practice in the U.S. opens the door for traffickers to keep up business.

The profit-motivated trafficking industry repeatedly uses unregulated abortions as a way to keep sexually exploiting victims and reinforce the idea that women are commodities who lose their value when they arent working and are having children.

That damaging narrative doesnt just drive the sex trafficking industry. Its also present in some of the biggest workplaces in America. Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some of the nations largest companies offered to subsidize abortions for their female employees to stay barren. For Bank of America,BlackRock, Dicks Sporting Goods, Disney, Goldman Sachs, H&M, Macys, Nike, Nordstrom, and Snap, it is easier to pay to end lives in the womb than offer support for mothers and children after birth.

As if the abortion industry hasnt hurt women enough already, it possesses a big role in sustaining the sex trafficking industry in the U.S. No matter how much abortion activists and the corporate media try to dismiss it, abortion is a tool to enable sexual exploitation and end lives, not empower women.

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 this article:

Who Is Really Empowered By Abortion? Traffickers And Abusers - The Federalist

Pro-abortion pundits spent Wednesday gleefully dunking on conservatives who had been skeptical of a story Joe Biden repeated about the rape of a 10-year-old Ohio girl, who had allegedly trekked to nearby Indiana to obtain an abortion. After years of media misinformation, the initial skepticism was warranted. Not only because it is prudent to be doubtful until you see real corroboration, but because the story came from a piece in the Indianapolis Star that relied on the word of a single abortionist, Caitlin Bernard.

Wednesday, we learned that a Columbus manas most news accounts described himhad been arrested for the crime.Gerson Fuentes, who is undocumented (an inconvenient tidbit that will surely be inadmissible in public debate), reportedly confessed to rapingthe childon at least two occasions. It is a gruesome and unfathomable tragedy.

Why was it difficult to believe? Its worth recalling that the president, who brazenly lies and invents stories about himself and the world virtually every day, had absolutely no proof that a rape had occurred, or that an abortion had been procured, when he decided to share the story with the world.

It is also worth remembering that pro-abortion advocates have long concocted stories and statistics to emotionally manipulate the public. Perhaps the most infamous of these was Walter Cronkites1965 documentary on the issue, which greatly exaggerated the number of back-alley abortions and deaths from botched abortions, numbers that were incessantly repeated thereafter by the media to shape public opinion. The documentary claimed, under the veneer of scientific expertise, that a million illegal abortions were performed every year (more than are legally procured today) and 5,000-10,000 women died from botched procedures numbers repeatedly discredited.

Besides, there are still reasons to be curious about certain aspects of this story. Did the victim really have to go to Indiana to be treated by a nationally known abortion activist? Ohios heartbeat abortion law has exemptions to save the life of the mother and stop irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. These decisions are dictated by the physicians reasonable medical judgment. When a 10-year-old Colombian girl gave birth (via cesarean section) in 2012, there was a string of stories quoting doctors detailing how pregnancy at that age threatened the pre-teen girls life. When relaying the story, Biden alleged that the girl was forced to travel out of the state to Indiana to maybe save her life. By those standards, the girl could likely have had a medical abortion in Ohio. So why was she in Indiana?

No matter what the answer to that question is, the frivolous way in which Democrats have exploited this tragedy is despicable. Not because theyre critical of Ohios lack of a rape exemption. Thats fair game. Its a fraught issue, both morally and politically. If one believes an unborn child is a life, then one believes it deserves protection from violence, no matter how tragic its origin. This is a difficult position to defend politically. But thats not the position Democrats want you to justify. No, its exploitation because pro-abortion advocates are using the rape of a child as a cudgel to make a case for all abortions. Its not like Democrats support abortion restrictions with rape exemptions.

Biden and others have engaged in a grossly cynical effort to use child rape to distract from their position. No pro-lifer is pro-rape. No pro-lifer wants to put the life of a 10-year-old in danger. Yet, Democrats support, sometimes celebrate, policy that allows for the termination of unborn life for any reason, including sex selection or eugenic manipulation, until birth. They are unperturbed by the fact that 10,000-plus viable or near-viable unborn babies are killed every yeartens of thousands of tragediesor that the vast majority of them are disposed of for the convenience of the would-be mothers and fathers. Dems not only believe this barbaric practice should be legal, but that it should be paid for by taxpayers. They not only believe in zero restrictions, they want to shut down pregnancy centers that work to convince mothers to have those children and support them after they do. Thats the reality of this debate.

Here is the original post:

The Rape Of An Ohio Girl Is A Horrific Tragedy. It Doesn't Change Reality - The Federalist

Bill Maher is many things. Hes an established comedian with his own show. Hes an influential voice in politics and pop culture. And hes well-spoken, honest, and happy to engage in controversial subjects.

Hes also a militant atheist and committed leftist. Hes unbearably smug and condescending. And hes frequently flat-out wrong in most of his judgments.

Yet, Maher enjoys a surprising amount of respect and admiration from conservatives, some of whom will even credit him as the most important political voice in America in 2022 and a voice willing to stand up for reason and sanity. This is because he will actually question some of the lefts more extreme ideas and face occasional backlash for it.

Curiously, rather than figure Maher as another leftist comedian occasionally bucking woke leftist stupidity (similar to Ricky Gervais or Dave Chappelle), many conservatives insist on casting Maher as a unique voice transcending partisanship and advocating common sense and common good to a hopelessly polarized nation. Somehow, he is less a crass comedian, and more a humorous intellectual seeking out the truth wherever it takes him.

With all due respect to the people who hold this view, Maher is nothing of the kind. His goal has never been to uncover truth or facilitate public discourse but to help his side and hurt the other side. This alone explains his occasional contentions with some leftist ideas, like performing mutilative sex surgeries and giving hormone blockers to young children. He doesnt care about the truth, much less children; he cares about the leftist brand and the Democratic Party which is losing popularity because of this nonsense.

To suggest otherwise is to give credit to a person who deserves the opposite. As Elle Reynolds thoroughly proves, Maher is no friend to conservatives even though he occasionally questions leftist stupidity. Although this might seem helpful in drawing back the extremists from the ledge of insanity, Reynolds explains how Mahers celebrated truth bombs are so obvious that they hardly even qualify as points: If a lifelong practitioner of left-wing thought popped into the conversation to say that murder is bad, that parents shouldnt beat or starve their children, or that we shouldnt march the Marines to Ottawa and pillage cities in their path, he would hardly deserve applause.

Meanwhile, the great majority of his monologues and comedy routines are rants about conservatives and Christians. For Maher, Christians and conservatives are stupid rubes who envy the sophistication and wealth of progressives. Before Wanda Sykes whined about the red stuff (that is, red states) ruining America, Maher delivered a whole monologue deriding middle America, filled with cringe-inducing lines like, We have Chef Wolfgang Puck. They have Chef Boyardee.

If Maher could be credited with anything, its that he has become very good at looking like a serious intellectual whos occasionally funny without actually being either. No doubt, his fans probably feel they are learning something when they listen to him. But as soon as his captive audience of clapping seals is gone, it becomes immediately apparent that Maher is another thoughtless, out-of-touch celebrity. This was revealed when he interviewed Rep. Dan Crenshaw, who completely refuted Mahers contention that President Trump was mishandling the Covid response and made Maher look like an idiot.

But for all that, shouldnt Maher be credited with at least reaching across the proverbial political and cultural aisle, and exposing himself to these kinds of moments? Doesnt this help his audiences put aside some of the differences that they have with other Americans?

A better question to ask is whether Mahers occasional willingness to dissent from his party and talk with guys like Ben Shapiro has actually done anything to help with political polarization. After all, Mahers been doing this a very long time, for at least three decades, since his show Politically Incorrect aired during the bipartisan golden days of the Clinton administration. Yet, for all his troubles, the left has become far more extreme and the country has become more polarized.

In many ways, Maher deserves much of the blame for this. He was one of the first comedians on television to make political partisanship a central component of his comedy. He preceded Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and all the other talk show hosts who now do the same thing.

Besides amounting to unfunny propaganda, Maher and these comedians brand of humor has mostly had the effect of stifling debate and reinforcing leftist orthodoxy. Anyone who dares to work with Republicans or breathes a word of sympathy for conservative ideas will now face the wrath of these court jesters and their followers. As a result, they have largely turned serious political discussions into puerile banter and transformed leftist pundits and politicians into sassy mean girls.

Mahers willingness to criticize his own side for the sake of a few laughs shouldnt fool anyone into thinking that there is any serious debate going on with Democrats. There isnt, and this problem is currently making them increasingly unpopular among American voters and is inhibiting their ability to legislate and govern. Anyone who dares question this, who isnt an officially recognized provocateur like Bill Maher, will face immediate cancellation.

By contrast, conservatives and Republicans prove their devotion to the marketplace of ideas by arguing with one another all the time, as Im doing right now. And, as nasty as these debates can be, they do bear fruit. They have made the GOP a stronger party that has more support and better ideas on how to run the country. These debates also make conservative media much more interesting and informative than what one typically gets from the leftist corporate media.

Like the broken clock that has the correct time twice a day, Bill Maher will occasionally come to the right conclusions on current events. However, he is a now rich old man who has done substantial damage to public discourse. Nothing he can say now should merit anyones admiration, let alone their attention.

Read more:

Dear Conservatives, Can We Please Stop Caring What Partisan Hack Bill Maher Thinks? - The Federalist

Some spoilers.

Anticipation grows as the Grabber walks into his basement dungeon where he stores his kidnapped victims. But when half of his mask is removed and the audience sees that its Ethan Hawke, the tension eases. The Black Phone isnt much like Hawkes other famed works (including the Before Sunrise trilogy), thats for sure.

In his first villain role, Hawke plays the part of a serial killer known as the Grabber, a magician who snatches neighborhood kids up in a black van. Audiences watch Finney Shaw, the killers most recent would-be victim, as he struggles to escape his captivity. His holy grail is a disconnected phone mounted to the wall through which the spirits of past victims communicate with him.

The Black Phone, directed by Scott Derrickson and written by C. Robert Cargill, is an expansion upon Joe Hills 2005 original short story. Similar to the horror stories of killers like John Wayne Gacy, The Black Phone isnt a new story. And yet, the film currently holds an 82 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has been received well by audiences. Whats so special?

Its the films supposed simplicity.

After seeing The Black Phone, I was left with a feeling of unconnected dots. The film wraps up with the Grabber meeting his end, but there is no backstory. No deep dive into the killers history. No breakdown of his family dynamic or disastrous romantic sagas. Instead, audiences are left with a classic story of good versus evil with the good prevailing in the end. The only characters given backstory are the victims. There is no attempt to drastically humanize the Grabber.

As a consumer of a lot of true crime media, its only natural for me to want more from a story like The Black Phone. From podcasts to Netflix series, the modern wave of true crime media has created a strong desire for logic within evil. A large part of consuming this type of content is a need to make sense of the senseless. If we study enough cases, perhaps we can prevent future ones from happening. An even bigger factor in this equation is the shock factor.

Thriller and horror films have been around for decades. The thrill of being scared and getting that adrenaline boost are not new desires. Its only with the dawn of the internet that those desires get trickier. With the amount of content bombarding us on the daily, theres a certain universal numbness that has an iron grip on us. Whether its terrorist organizations posting beheading videos on YouTube, unrestricted internet access to hardcore pornography, or the ability to look up anything you desire, shock factor is more arbitrary than ever.

Even within the film industry itself, mainstream horror films are more intense and graphic. Audiences seem to be waiting for the next film to be even fouler than the ones before. While this poses a dilemma for filmmakers and writers, it also opens a huge opportunity for creativity. This dilemma can be seen as a challenge: a challenge to do more with less and still accomplish the same effect.

This is why The Black Phone has been received so well. It offers a simpler story without losing any of its spark or edge. Dont get me wrong, there are a few graphic scenes the movie is still a scary movie. But instead of relying on gore or audiences empathy, it offers us a story in which good triumphs over evil with zero wiggle room for the latter.

The films nuance emerges in its details surrounding abuse, trauma, and connectivity. Finneys life is characterized by violence even before he is kidnapped. Whether its intense bullying in the schoolyard or the abuse inflicted by his alcoholic father, Finneys character development is quick. He is forced to be an adult before his voice has even dropped.

With the help of a spiritual realm, the preteens of The Black Phone lead this story. From Finneys clairvoyant sister Gwen leading the investigation to the deceased victims giving him clues to escape, the connectivity of the young characters adds both an endearing and haunting element to the film. The adults are consistently out-of-touch. Cops wont listen. The dad is never without a belt or a bottle in hand. The Grabber doesnt know how to deal with a competent hostage. Peer support and faith in whatever powers-that-be are what prevail in the end.

The Black Phone is the perfect example of a thriller that eloquently tells a story without saying that much. All viewers need to do is pick up the phone.

Ally Hall is a junior attending Hillsdale College where she is studying journalism and biology. In her free time, she runs a music blog and interviews artists.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See original here:

As We Become Harder To Shock, 'The Black Phone' Thrills With Simplicity - The Federalist