Category Archives: Federalist

It wasnt until nearly three months into the national formula shortage which caused starving infants in multiple states to be hospitalized that President Joe Biden and his team finally bothered to mention the government-induced crisis.

Since the Food and Drug Administration shutdownof one of the countrys largest infant formula plants in February, parents in the U.S. have been struggling to find the right baby food required to keep their children alive. Biden, however, claims that he wasnt aware of any issues with the formula supply chain until April when the national out-of-stock rate for formula hit 30 percent.

I dont think anyone anticipated the impact of the shutdown of one facility, in, uh, the Abbott facility, the Democrat said. Once we learned of the extent of it and how broad it was, we kicked everything into gear and I think we are on the way to be able to completely solve the problem.

Bidens claim that no one could have predicted this emergency is denied by multiple baby formula industry executives who all issued similar warnings about the impact a facility shutdown would have on Americans.

We knew from the very beginning this would be a very serious event, Reckitt executive Robert Cleveland said.

Yet neither Biden nor the White House can seem to pinpoint when exactly the president was made aware of the problems plaguing American babies.

Didnt the CEOs just tell you they understood it would have a very big impact? a reporter asked.

They did but I didnt, Biden replied.

When reporters pressured new White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to answer exactly why it took 6-8 weeks for Biden to be briefed on the gravity of the issue, she said she couldnt provide a timeline for the administrations response.

Thats a drastic change in messaging from early May when Jean-Pierre claimed the shortage was a top priority for the White House.

This is an urgent issue that the FDA and White House are working 24/7 to address, she said.

That was, of course, shortly before she laughed in response to questions about who is running point on the formula issue at the White House?

At the White House, I dont know, Jean-Pierre said through laughter on May 11. I can find out for you and get you a person who is running point.

It was also shortly before outgoing Press Secretary Jen Psaki blamed formula problems onretailers, stockers, and alleged baby formula hoarders, while the White House Instagram page advised parents to use a different brand of formula and call your OB/GYN or pediatrician to request supplements.

The Biden administration eventually tried to soothe Americans formula panic by invoking the Defense Production Act, striking a reopening deal with the formula plant that had been shut down, and flying in the product from Europe. But not even Bidens imports could distract from the fact that the White House waited weeks to address a crisis that childrens lives at stake.

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.

Here is the original post:

Here's Proof Biden Really Bungled This Baby Formula Shortage Crisis - The Federalist

Because the corporate media focus on only The Most Important Things, youve likely received a hefty helping of the Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard courtroom drama whether or not you wanted to. In case you hadnt yet heard, Depp won the defamation suit on Wednesday afternoon.

The real loser in the whole sensationalized mess, however, isnt the Aquaman actress, who now owes some $15 million to her actor ex-husband. Its The Washington Post, which printed Heards infamous sexual violence claims in 2018 that cost Depp, in his own words, everything.

Its all such a degenerate nightmare of he-said-she-said from start to finish, with claims of everything from drunken outbursts and drug addiction, to sexual and physical abuse, to poop on bedsheets and the inadvertent chopping off a fingertip with a vodka bottle in a bout of blind rage. These are just the snippets I picked up from the inescapable news cycle because theres really no other justifiable reason for watching such nonsense. None of it matters outside the ex-couple and their immediate circle.

What does matter to the rest of America is the pitiful state of elite journalism that enables such a weighty claim as sexual violence to be published unchallenged. Perhaps our cultural lie that nothing more than silence can constitute violence has watered down the word, but phrases such as sexual violence do have meaning and weighty ones at that and its the duty of journalists to gatekeep those definitions and fact-check claims of them.

The Washington Post has reported also on the trial, attempting to distance itself from Heards op-ed with facts that came out after the newspaper published her claims, such as how much each person is suing the other for, what the fallout of the article has been, and the fact that Depp has denied all claims of abuse.

A publication with any semblance of ethics might have asked Depp for comment about the sexual violence claims before running with the allegations then subsequently spiked the op-ed or sicced its reporters on the case for more fact-finding. But not The Washington Post.

That paper, which loves to blather in its self-important tone about how democracy dies in darkness, didnt bother to turn the lights in the direction of Heards claims. Instead, it gave her a free pass to air her dirty laundry against her ex-husband and consequently enabled her to paint herself both as a victim and a crusader of the Me Too era.

The whole situation offers two takeaways, and they arent that Depp is a dreamy hero or stand-up husband. The first is that Believe All Women is not only a lousy standard for our culture generally but its a disgraceful standard for legacy newsrooms. Good journalists live by a principle known as trust but verify, and The Washington Post traded it for believe and print or youre complicit in wife-beating.

To that end, the second takeaway is that if The Washington Post cant be bothered to verify a simple but heavy claim of sexual violence against an A-list actor, it cant be trusted to tell the truth about Russia collusion hoaxes, rape allegations against Republican Supreme Court nominees, guns, infanticide supporters, abortion, corrupt bureaucrats, critical race theory opponents, kids wearing MAGA hats, brutal ISIS leaders, peaceful Trump supporters, or even Jesus among countless other people and things.

Amber Heard might have lost the lengthy defamation battle, but The Washington Post is the one with a habit of crapping the bed.

Originally posted here:

The Real Loser In The Johnny Depp Drama Is The Washington Post - The Federalist

President Joe Biden signed a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine over a week ago, bringing total taxpayer funding for the war-torn nation to roughly $54 billion with Republican support but where exactly these additional funds are coming from remains a mystery.

The bill, which offers $7 billion more than the president requested, passed the House with 149 Republicans voting in favor, and another 25 Republicans in the Senate securing its passage a week later. Only 57 Republicans in the House and 11 Republicans in the Senate voted in opposition.

GOP Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley condemned the package as a colossal donation made against American interests.

It neglects priorities at home (the border), allows Europe to freeload, short changes critical interests abroad and comes w/ no meaningful oversight, Hawley tweeted ahead of the Senate vote. He also published an op-ed critical of a neocon resurgence within the Republican Party last Tuesday.

Republicans outside congressional leadership who championed the bill include Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw.

Days after the vote in the lower chamber, Crenshaw went on Fox News to defend his support for the billions sent to Ukraine, calling it a vehicle to pivot our foreign policy focus from Russia to China.

This is an investment in the severe degradation of our second biggest adversary, the Russian military, Crenshaw said. That allows us to do something. That allows us to focus on our actual biggest adversary, which is China.

Graham made a similar case on the same network, claiming the fate of Taiwan depends on the fate of the Ukrainians.

China is just waiting to see what to do with Taiwan. All the chips in the world for our high-tech industry come from Taiwan. So, theres a lot at stake here, Graham said, conceding that more federal attention ought to be paid to domestic issues. We should have rational border policies. We dont.

Christian Whiton, a former senior adviser in the State Department under Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump who now serves as a senior fellow for the Center for National Interest, told The Federalist that if lawmakers were serious about a pivot to China, they would be already pivoting to China, not Ukraine.

If you want to focus on Asia, you focus on Asia. This will get us deeper in the issues of Europe, Whiton said of the billions in taxpayer dollars being shipped off to Ukraine. We are actually increasing the moral hazard where we let Europe off the hook where were paying for its security. None of that is going to make it easier to shift to Asia.

Lawmakers cant give a straight answer on where exactly Congresss appropriated funds for Ukraine will ultimately come from. When asked whether they would support raising taxes to pay for the $54 billion to Ukraine, each of the three Crenshaw, Graham, and Ernst offered different answers. Crenshaws office offered no response, while Ernsts spokeswoman responded with a simple no.

Speaking in mid-May, Grahams communications director Kevin Bishop told The Federalist the issue hadnt yet been discussed.

Graham has expressed support, including speaking on the floor yesterday, about seizing Russian oligarch assets to help with the costs associated with Ukraine, Bishop said.

Whiton warned of finite defense budgets as tax dollars become scarcer amid recession and fiscal crises brought by unrestrained Washington spending.

If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority, Whiton said. Frankly when it comes to spending, when it comes to our attention span our focus needs to be on China now, not in some distant future.

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.

View post:

GOP Neocons Unclear On Where $40 Billion For Ukraine Will Come From - The Federalist

During the summer of 2020, when most of the world was shut down over Covid-19, Norm Macdonald was scheduled to undergo a procedure related to the leukemia that would ultimately kill him. The comedian didnt want to leave anything on the table in case things went south, so he shot a special in his house, seated, with no audience. The result is brutal, brilliant, and hilarious.

The original intention was to re-film the set with an audience once the world opened back up, but the comedian never got that chance. Instead, were treated to a unique performance from a dying man, dispensing wisdom through jokes. The performance takes place at the bottom of a stairwell in his house. A yappy dog heckles him briefly at one point and causes him to restart the joke he was telling; his cell phone rings at another.

He meanders around, pretending to have forgotten the point he was trying to make. The color yellow appears repeatedly. He leans into his trademark mispronunciation of words. He even offers eye contact and nods to the nonexistent crowd.

But hes not just telling jokes, hes trying to do his part to heal a broken world, knowing its likely his last time to do so. Hes using humor to remind us of our own humanity, to bring people together, which was especially visionary considering the fear of each other that was so prevalent when he filmed it.

Macdonald is also offering his goodbyes. In the closing portion, he expresses his limitless love for his selfless mother and celebrates her sacrifices. Ill avoid spoilers, but Macdonalds love for her is evident. Leaving nothing on the table, he finishes his last show ever discussing her, closing out his career with a tribute to her, almost coming to tears at one point, although it ends with a crude joke.

Macdonald, who hid his illness, was obviously dealing with his own mortality during the performance, but he was also doing something more. He was playing the part of a philosopher.

As he jokes at one point in Nothing Special, I hear people say, The comedian is the modern-day philosopher. First of all, it makes me feel sad for the actual modern-day philosophers, who exist, you know. Theyre working, trying to come up with their philosophy, you know, and they go, did you hear this? The nightclub comic is doing great work on totaligism.

While he wasnt elucidating upon totaligism, or any other fake -isms, the special does, as Matt Mehan wrote on Twitter, offer a brutal indictment of modern ideological immorality. Mehan, director of academic programs and professor of government at Hillsdales D.C. campus, also offered me this comment: He is reaching out to a fallen people, with a humor designed to free them from their worst habits and opinions, under the guise of admittedly crude stand up.

And it is crude. The language is salty, and many of the jokes are dirty. During the process, though, Norm hints at the cruelty of aborting children with Down syndrome, pointing out that their only crime is being extremely happy. He discusses the problems surrounding living wills and euthanasia.

Norm wasnt afraid to openly profess his Christianity. That faith, which obviously influenced the entire set and much of his comedy in general, opens people to his message. Norm spoke the truth in love.

Not that the lack of a live audience, with potential converts sitting in the chairs, changes his style. Just as he did on stage, in Nothing Special, he refuses to flinch. As Anthony Jeselnik said when asked what he learned from Macdonald, Believe in your joke. And if the audience doesnt get it, you still need to believe in it You dont want to be a crowd-pleaser. You want to be a great comedian.

In the reaction to the special from David Letterman, Dave Chappelle, Molly Shannon, Conan OBrien, Adam Sandler, and David Spade, a story came up in which Macdonald told a group of comedians he was the best amongst them. None of those present could argue with that assessment.

When Macdonald passed away, the world lost a great comedian. Were he looking over my shoulder right now, he might even instruct me to call him the greatest. Given that one of his last acts was to leave a brilliant gift for us to enjoy now that hes gone, I wouldnt disagree. For while all comedy has the potential to be transformative, Norms vision was to transform us in ways that allow us to become better, more connected, more faithful people.

He invited us to believe, even if popular sentiment wasnt on his side. With Nothing Special, he still invites us to do so. Norm wants us to have faith, to believe in God, in ourselves, in us, in the goodness all people have the power to try to capture, even as we mostly fail. May we all be so unflinching, regardless of how the audience responds.

See original here:

Norm Macdonald Has One Last Laugh In 'Nothing Special' - The Federalist

Memorial Day is a profound American holiday because it connects the present with so many different points of our past. It was originally known as Decoration Day, a day set aside to honor those who lost their lives in the Civil WarAmericas most costly war, taking the lives of at least 620,000 men. Among American holidays, Memorial Day is unique also in that it originated from the vanquished, not the victor.

After the war was over, women from the SouthColumbus, Mississippi and Richmond, Virginiaset out to decorate with flowers the gravesites of their fallen Confederate soldiers. But they became so moved in the process that they decided to equally decorate the gravesites of Union soldiers buried alongside their loved ones. That expression was profound, for it showed an amazing forgiveness toward even a merciless Union victor, like Gen. William Sherman, whose scorched-earth military campaigns had committed so many atrocitiesravaging the lives of non-combatants and unnecessarily destroying swaths across five southern states.

Although Abraham Lincoln could have blamed the South for starting the war by seceding from the United States and firing the first shots on Fort Sumter, he expressed no accusation nor bitterness toward the South and held that both sides were to blame for the Civil War. With malice toward none, with charity for alllet us bind up the nations wounds, said Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address.

Decoration Day would not become a national holiday for nearly a century, until after the two World Wars and the Korean War cost America another 559,000 lives. During the Vietnam War, Decoration Day was renamed Memorial Day to honor all servicemen who died in the line of duty in any war or engagement. It became an official national holiday when Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in 1968.

While remembering those who lost their lives serving America in wartime is a central purpose of this holiday, Memorial Day takes on its deepest meaning when we connect it with our heritage and roots. A takeaway from the Civil War era is not only acknowledging the magnanimity and quality of character of most leaders of those earlier times, but also the respect and civility that allowed healing and moving forward as a nation.

One glaring difference between those times and the present is that we have lost much of the civility that facilitated keeping our diverse peoples together in earlier times. The qualities of character and societal norms shaped by Christian influence that were taken for granted through the mid-20th centurywhich included grace, respect, tolerance, and mannershave been increasingly crowded out by a coarse secular culture, and more recently by a surrogate woke religion that has added to the aforementioned rigid closed-mindedness and loss of spontaneity, humor, and joy.

The deepest meaning of Memorial Day can be found in simply remembering that when Americans sacrificed their lives in military service, it was not just to defend the United States, but it was also to uphold the natural God-given rights of all people that were articulated in the nations founding documents. Those established a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. As a result, America became an inspiration for others around the world. Some likened America to being a light to world, like acityon a hill that cannot be hidden.

One cannot help but see and feel this Memorial Day 2022 that Americas light has dimmed with our countrys leadership losing its way on many fronts and even betraying the people. So, it is fitting to reflect on our past and rediscover the threads that not only hold us together, but also provide strength to the patchwork of our national fabric to withstand the storms ahead.

A discussion of Memorial Day would just not be complete without appreciating the significance of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, formally established on what was then known as Armistice Day, three years after the end of World War I. The U.S. Congress had approved the burial of an unidentified American soldier who had fallen somewhere on a battlefield in France at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier came to be recognized as the most hallowed grave at Arlington Cemeterythe most sacred military cemetery in the United States. Here, one of the profound ironies of our history is that this hallowed and sacred ground came from vanquished Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, who despite his defeat in leading the Confederate cause in the Civil War ended up with the highest unspoken national honor.

That honor unexpectedly came from the great loss of giving up his familys Arlington House plantation, which he and his wife forfeited to the federal government after they sided with Virginia and the South. The 1,100 acres of that seized plantation land would later become the Arlington Cemeterythe most hallowed ground in Americaproviding a final resting place for future patriots who gave their lives for the cause of freedom and the American republic.

The selection process for the World War II Unknown proved more difficult than that of World War I since American soldiers had fought on three continents. Then the process was interrupted by the Korean War, which resulted in numerous dead who could not be identified.

Finally on May 28, 1958, caskets bearing the Unknowns of World War II and the Korean War arrived in Washington. The caskets were rotated such that each unknown serviceman rested on the Lincoln catafalque, a raised platform that held President Lincolns casket in April 1865. Two days later on May 30, then the official date of Memorial Day, those Unknowns were transported to Arlington Cemetery, where they were interred in the plaza beside their World War I comrades.

With so many missing in action in the Vietnam War, it was decided that the crypt designated Unknown for that war would remain empty. It was rededicated to honor all missing U.S. service members from the Vietnam War on September 17, 1999, with the inscription on the crypt reading, Honoring and Keeping the Faith with Americas Missing Servicemen, 1958-1975.

The inscribed words on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of Here Rests in Honored Glory an American Soldier Known but to God are an uplifting reminder that all those who died for the American cause should have a special place in our hearts as they do in Gods. The tomb is guarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year regardless of weather by special armed Tomb Guard sentinels.

Anyone who visits the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier cannot but be humbled and even tearfully reminded of what Lincoln said at Gettysburg, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Memorial Day reminds us that U.S. military personnel are asked to put their lives on the line. Defending the nation and fighting wars is the most serious and important job of all. There should be no acceptance of political and military leadership ineptitude, such as what led up to throwing away a long and hard-fought victory in Iraq by withdrawing all U.S. forces in 2011enabling the rise of ISIS; or what led up to the hasty retreat from Afghanistan in August 2021, which unnecessarily cost 13 American soldiers and left behind some $80 billion of U.S. military equipment in what was effectively a surrender to the Taliban.

Similarly, there should be zero tolerance for policies or programs that divide and demoralize our troops such as critical race theory indoctrination, which has been the willful policy choice of Joe Bidens secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In sum, this year2022Memorial Day takes on a greater two-fold meaning than it has previously. We are called to remember those who died in military service to the country and recommit to the conviction that those lives lost shall never be in vain. Equally important, we should remember and deepen our appreciation of a heritage that began with a courageous, brilliant, and faithful group of founders and those that followed who were willing to give their lives to establish, preserve and protect the United States and what it stands for.

While many of us now feel that the light from the City on a Hill has grown dim, our Constitution still stands, and we the people are still in charge. In the face of internal and external enemies seeking our demise, we cannot falter or retreat. We have much to do.

Let us go forward with the biblical admonition that if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I willforgive their sin and will heal their land.

Read the original post:

By Keeping The Past Alive, Memorial Day Can Help Us Save The Future - The Federalist

There is no question that the Southern Baptist Convention is facing a moment of reckoning. The SBC is a free association of churches, and trust is its connective tissue. The release of the Guidepost Solutions report on the Executive Committees response to Sexual Abuse Allegations has revealed horrifying accounts of broken trust. It is clear that our local churches and some of our SBC leaders have at times failed by mishandling or even covering up abuse allegations involving their friends.

My heart breaks for those who have suffered abuse, which was made all the worse because it came from the hands of those they should be able to trust the most: their own pastors and convention leaders. I have sought to weep with those who weep, as we are instructed to do in Romans 12:15. I pray that justice true justice will be done in each and every instance of abuse accounted for in the report and for any that have gone unreported. There is no question that trust has been broken.

The question, then, is how should the SBC respond?

Southern Baptist leaders, the entities they serve, and the trustees who oversee them are supposed to function as stewards. They are entrusted with significant resources by local churches and, ultimately, by God.

More importantly, they are stewards of the gospel and of the spiritual well-being of those they represent. Trust and transparency are essential qualities of a steward. If there is no trust, then how can we expect resources, both material and spiritual, to be entrusted? And if there is no transparency no thorough accounting given how can there be trust?

Events in recent years have called into question the trustworthiness and transparency of many SBC entities. As a result, a growing number of Southern Baptist churches and pastors are finding it harder and harder to trust those in positions of leadership. To restore trust and transparency, we will need to prayerfully seek both spiritual renewal and structural renovation.

We must begin by admitting that many of the issues within the SBC are ultimately traceable to a lack of the fear of God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding (Psalm 111:10). People who genuinely fear God will hold themselves and their leaders to the highest standards of ethical behavior and will not cover up for abuse, plagiarism, or quid pro quo behavior.

If we have churches with pastors who are not meaningfully accountable to their own congregation, and we do not expect our members to grow in holiness, how can we expect our convention leaders to change their behavior when they take the reins of convention leadership?

The repentance that we need must begin in the pulpits and the pews of our local churches. The biblical practices of regenerate church membership, diligent discipleship, and when necessary, corrective church discipline are the bedrock on which a culture of accountability must be built that would then flow down through the SBC and its entities as a necessary consequence.

Indeed, as I wrote back in 2019 when the Houston Chronicle first broke its story regarding abuse cases within the SBC, the presence of sexual abuse in our churches is a disturbing symptom of the underlying condition: our lackadaisical attitude toward Gods blueprint for the church reveals that we do not fear Him.

While genuine repentance and faithful ecclesiology are of paramount importance, we should also prayerfully consider how we can implement biblically informed structural renovations that will encourage trust and transparency in the SBC. In general, what we need to do is make structural changes to create a culture of accountability, rather than bureaucratizing the SBC.

Abuse is covered up because there are incentives to look the other way when problems arise. So, the necessary structural renovations will address sex abuse and many of the other problems weve seen in the SBC recently. Too often, entity leaders disregard the will of the messengers and the churches they represent. They do not act in a transparent manner, even withholding information from boards of trustees who cannot provide accountability without information.

Among the many alarming revelations contained in the recent Sex Abuse Task Force (SATF) report is one glaring organizational problem that exacerbates all the rest. I am speaking of the complete failure of the trustee-staff relationship on the Executive Committee (EC). The report makes clear that the staff hid vital information from the EC trustees, even deceiving them at points, which is in clear violation of bylaws.

Thats not how it is supposed to work. The trustees of all of our entities need to receive better training to understand their fiduciary responsibility to hold the entities accountable to the churches that make them possible. We desperately need to implement structural board reforms so boards provide meaningful oversight to their entities, as stewards, and get all the information they need to do the job.

We should strictly require that conflicts of interest be disclosed and that trustees recuse themselves from voting on matters where they are conflicted. Perhaps it would be appropriate to limit (or prohibit) employees of SBC entities from serving on the boards of other entities. We should also implement a schedule of periodic forensic audits to encourage entities to act with the utmost integrity with the funds with which theyve been entrusted.

To return to the pressing issue of sex abuse, these structural renovations will help us get to the heart of the cultural rot evidenced in the SATF report and will give us the information and processes necessary to hold individuals accountable for abuse (or covering for abuse). Boards of SBC entities need to be proactive, asking hard questions and having outside investigations performed if necessary. In these matters, we need to be able to look sex abuse squarely in the eye and call it a grievous sin and heinous crime which should have no place in our churches or our convention.

At the same time, we can do so in a fashion thats more effective, biblical, and consistent with our longstanding Baptist polity. The tools I mentioned above are surgical they will help us to create a culture of accountability among SBC leaders without fundamentally transforming the SBCs longstanding polity.

We may want to consider some other specific methods by which the SBC could serve its member churches. For example, it may be prudent and helpful for the SBC to facilitate access to background checks, training materials, and model policies that local churches could implement on a voluntary basis while still respecting their autonomy.

Yet, even while we consider biblically informed structural renovations, we should be cautious about some of the SATF reports more sweeping recommendations that could broadly transform the polity of the SBC on the basis of a report that focuses solely on the behavior of the executive committee and its staff. To be sure, it may seem tempting (and easier) to propose sweeping changes to SBC governance, but doing so creates diffuse responsibility for current leaders; failures can be blamed on the system rather than on individuals. We should also be concerned about how the SATF report recommends the creation of an offender list that, as others have pointed out, does not appear to provide due process to the people who would potentially be listed.

The scriptures give us the right framework for addressing abuse in our midst. Without question, sexual abuse should be reported to civil authorities immediately by anyone who becomes aware of such abuse, as those authorities rightfully wield the sword to punish evil-doers. Individuals in leadership (whether in local churches or convention entities), if proven to have engaged in sex abuse, are fully and permanently disqualified from being leaders in the church under biblical criteria.

Yet, in our zeal to ban the disqualified, we must not violate the biblically informed due process provisions embedded in American law (see 2 Corinthians 13:1, in which the Apostle Paul subjects himself to evidentiary standards when dealing with sin in the Corinthian church). As people of the Book, we must not disregard scriptures wisdom by casting aside concern for due process in our quest for justice.

In close, though some will squander the moment by rushing to adopt recommendations informed by the logic of the world, those who fear God must humbly seek the path of righteousness. What is needed is a repentant return to biblical ecclesiology and a courageous and relentless rooting out of the bureaucratic rot that has too often prevented the heeding of scriptures wisdom.

We have a Book, but it seems like its been collecting dust in recent years. If Southern Baptists continue to ignore that Book in favor of concocting our own plans, we will not restore trust and transparency but will instead lead the SBC down a path of destruction.

Tom Ascol is the senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church and President of Founders Ministries and the Institute of Public Theology. He is a candidate for president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The rest is here:

The SBC Must Respond To Reports Of Abuse With Full Transparency - The Federalist

More than one week after an 18-year-old gunman stormed Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, state officials are still struggling to set the record straight on what really happened that led to the deaths of 19 kids and two adults.

For a week now, the public, the press, and politicians have been on a wild goose chase to find out why it took more than an hour for good guys with guns to take down a school shooter in a small school in the small South Texas town last Tuesday.

Unfortunately, Texas safety officials have traded the truth for multiple false, misleading, and vague statements that have significantly undermined the publics trust in law enforcements ability to protect children like the fourth-graders who lost their lives in the attack.

Not only have they severely undercut the trust of Americans, theyve infuriated the mourning Uvalde community.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he felt misled and livid after hearing that a poor police response significantly contributed to the delay in action against the shooter. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also lamented that No one mentioned the fact that there was this 45-minute to an hour hold by the chief of the police of the school district while there were still shots being fired.

Here are eight lies Texas officials told about the Uvalde shooting that should get them immediately fired.

Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steve McCraw originally said a school resource officer engaged the suspect before he entered the school.

At one point, McCraw switched tracks and said the officer was not on campus at the time of the shooting.

Elsewhere, officials were reported saying the school officer simply confronted the shooter instead of actively engaging him.

Texas DPS was forced to walk back both accounts a couple of days later when word got out that the school resource officer completely failed to notice the shooter when he drove past the suspect who was hunkered down behind a vehicle.

[The shooter] walked in unobstructed initially, Texas DPS Regional Director Victor Escalon eventually admitted. So from the grandmothers house, to the [ditch], to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.

Escalon said last week that the shooter lingered outside of Robb for 12 minutes after crashing his car into a nearby ditch. Days later, McCraw said the gun-wielding teen was inside the school within five minutes of wrecking.

Original reports from the shooting scene at Robb Elementary suggested that a teacher left a back door at the school propped open with a rock which is how the shooter entered the building.

McCraw volunteered the information during his Friday press conference and claimed that DPS obtained video evidence to support this theory.

We know from video evidence, at 11:27 the exterior door suspected for what the where we knew the shooter entered, Ramos was propped open by a teacher, he said.

Recent statements from Texas state police,however, suggest that the teacher accused of neglecting the back door went back to close it after seeing Ramos. The door, however, did not automatically lock properly. The unnamed teachers lawyer also denies that his client left the back door open.

In a complete contradiction of DPSs original claim, some outlets are even reporting that security footage obtained from the area has backed up the claim that the teacher closed the door at this time.

DPS spokesman Sgt. Erick Estrada claimed shortly after the shooting that the suspect carried a rifle and [had] body armor on.

Another DPS spokesman, Lt. Christopher Olivarez, later claimed that the gunman was wearing a vest designed to carry extra ammo but did not have any plates on him.

McCraw originally said that the first law enforcement officers who arrived at the school did engage the shooter immediately.

The bottom line is law enforcement was there, McCraw said the day after the shooting. They did engage immediately. They did contain [the gunman] in the classroom.

UvaldePolice Chief Daniel Rodriguez also claimed that hisofficersresponded within minutes.

It wasnt until three days after the tragedy that McCraw admitted local law enforcement shied away from helping students and staff after taking fire from the suspect. McCraw claimed that officers misclassified the suspect as a barricaded shooter and that there were no kids at risk. Officers reportedly stood outside of the school and then outside of the classroom for nearly an hour while waiting for a Border Patrol tactical team to show up at the scene where students were repeatedly calling 911 for help.

By the time BORTAC arrived and used a janitor key to enter the afflicted fourth-grade classroom, the shooter had been on school property for more than an hour.

Oliverez claimed that local law enforcement officers retreated because they couldve been shot and wanted to wait for specialized backup. Records, however, show that Chief Pete Arredondo of Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, who ordered officers to stay outside of the classroom where the gunman was, was trained to respond in active shooter situations.

Records show Arredondo recently completed eight hours of active shooter training in December of 2021. He also went through eight hours of the same training in 2020 and 16 hours of Terrorism Response Tactics Active Shooter in 2019. Furthermore, the Uvalde Police Department bragged on Facebook in 2018 about a grant that equipped every officer with body armor.

DPS claimed on Tuesday that Arredondo has not responded to investigators over his role in delaying a law enforcement response to the Robb shooting.

The Uvalde Police Department and Uvalde [school district] Police have been cooperating with investigators, DPS said in a statement. The chief of the Uvalde [school district] Police provided an initial interview but has not responded to a request for a follow-up interview with the Texas Rangers that was made two days ago.

On the same day, multiple law enforcement sources told ABC News that The Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde Independent School District police force are no longer cooperating with the Texas Department of Public Safetys investigation.

Arredondo, however, told CNN on Wednesday that Ive been on the phone with them every day.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin denied that local law enforcement misled the public about their actions during the school shooting.

Local law enforcement has not made any public comments about the specifics of the investigation into the incident or [misled] anyone, McLaughlin said. Statements by Lt. Governor Dan Patrick that he was not told the truth are not true. All statements and comments made to date about the ongoing investigation are being handled by DPS/Texas Rangers.

Local law enforcement may not have directly said much about the Uvalde shooting, but officers failed to clarify any of the blatant misinformation parroted by DPS, allowing the public to be misled for days.

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.

See the original post:

8 Lies Texas Officials Told About Uvalde That Should Get Them Fired - The Federalist

Its never been easy to have a dissenting opinion, but its been getting harder and harder. Today, countless people face social and professional consequences for expressing their political views, and many more self-censor because they fear the consequences of candid dialogue (see here, here, and here).

Harassment, racial demonization, and social ostracization are becoming more frequent as woke culture spreads. And as people critical of leftist orthodoxy face more antagonism, they experience more stress and more isolation, and theyre more likely to need psychotherapy.

Rather than helping, the mental health field has often been antagonistic toward this population. Now, theres a growing population of people who need mental health services at the same time that providers are most likely to mistreat patients with non-leftist views.

A few years ago, I worked at a psychotherapy clinic in New York City. A couple of weeks after starting, a therapist of color described his Jewish graduate-student patient in a clinic-wide meeting (in all clinical examples, the identifying information of patients and providers have been changed to protect patient confidentiality).

This patient had come for help with depression and social anxiety, but he also expressed frustration because he felt he lost out on a research fellowship based on affirmative action. The ethnically diverse group of about two-dozen providers (psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists) discussed the patient and then came to an apparent consensus: the patient needed to be confronted about his racism and then be told that if he didnt want to overcome his biases, he would be asked to leave therapy.

They argued it would be unfair for a non-white therapist to have to provide therapy to such a racist patient unless he changed his views. No one seemed to consider that it might be unethical to turn a patient away from therapy for his opinions about affirmative action.

Another example: In a case conference at a different clinic, one therapist described a session with a black high school student who was the daughter of African immigrants. This patient reported speaking in one of her classes to say that all people are the same regardless of race. In response, her teacher called her racist and condemned her views in front of the class.

The patient was tearful and felt humiliated. Yet the providers at the clinic responded to the situation by debating whether the therapist should focus on supporting the patient or advocating for her teachers views. Crazy as it may seem, convincing the patient of her teachers views on identity politics was seen as therapeutic. Supposedly, guiding her toward correct thinking was necessary for therapeutic healing.

Years ago, I saw a white, male patient who had a significant history of facing anti-white hate racial bullying in school, hateful professors in college, white and non-white colleagues making insulting comments about white people at the workplace. Yet he was hesitant to share these experiences in therapy because he thought I would react the way others had: by minimizing his experience or framing him as fragile and privileged.

He also wondered if I would be able to hear his anger, disillusionment, and pain without feeling the need to invalidate him. Who could blame him?

Recent data suggest that about 40 percent of Americans self-censor, and about 40 percent of college students report being very or somewhat reluctant to discuss a controversial political topic. But if a friend or colleague were to ask me for a referral for a patient who had been attacked for having unorthodox political views or for a patient who was closeted about her political beliefs, I wouldnt know where to look.

There seem to be no resources at all. As the above examples demonstrate, these patients cant assume that their therapists will be supportive or understanding. Patients with unorthodox views face problems such as bias, judgment, conflict, value divergences from their therapist, and even outright rejection in therapy.

Having an unorthodox viewpoint is often painful and stressful. Many have had to sit through academic or professional events in which their beliefs were ridiculed by the people in charge. Increasingly, people are insulted at work or school for being white or male (theyre inherently fragile, ignorant, immoral, toxic, etc.) while every other group is praised and celebrated (theyre strong, wise, virtuous, beautiful, etc.).

The hostility and contempt are often palpable, but dissent can lead to harassment. Other times people experience aggression thats less direct everything from malicious gossip to having complaints filed about them for seemingly unrelated issues.

Many patients with unorthodox beliefs have experienced public shaming, ostracization by colleagues, and professional limitations, among other problems. Even when they face less overt aggression, people can suffer simply from having to stifle their thoughts and feelings. Therapists need to be aware of these experiences and their effects on patients, but there is currently little research about these issues.

Holding a dissenting viewpoint can also be accompanied by loneliness and a lack of social support. Many people hold closeted political beliefs that they share only with a select few. Its hard to know who will be accepting and who could react aggressively, so every disclosure about ones beliefs is fraught. Some people are even afraid to tell their spouses about their views. For many, their therapist is their only support related to these experiences, another reason being rejected in therapy can be so damaging.

As with other stressors, one would expect that holding unorthodox views could contribute to mental illness anxiety, relationship problems, depression, anger, etc. But, as far as I know, no individual therapists specialize in these issues.

If you look for a therapist online, youll see that many of them have tags indicating populations they specialize in: women, LGBTQ+, immigrants, Latinx, etc. Ive never seen a tag related to unorthodox or non-woke viewpoints. There appear to be no group therapies that focus on this topic no clinics, no programs to train clinicians, no consultation groups for providers, no professional organizations, no competency standards for providers, no community resources. If any of these exist, their visibility is extremely low.

Most patients are sensitive to their therapists judgments, and many can tell when their views are being judged even if the therapist never says anything explicitly. Nonetheless, many continue with their therapist despite these judgments. Often theyre vulnerable and develop some dependency on their therapists, so leaving isnt always as easy as it might seem.

Others internalize the stigma about their beliefs. Some quietly hope their therapist will ignore their political views or religious beliefs. Others simply lie.

Ive witnessed numerous acts of therapist insensitivity about these issues. Ive heard therapists proudly acknowledge that theyve criticized patients as sexist for their word choice. Ive heard of clinical supervisors saying that anyone who could vote for Donald Trump must be crazy, stupid, or evil. Ive heard patients with conventional spiritual beliefs labeled as having magical thinking, and religious patients labeled as bigots because they feel their faith is superior to others.

While there certainly are instances in which religious and political beliefs are linked to symptoms, these labels obviously cant be applied to all voters of a given party or all people of faith. This should go without saying, but often it doesnt.

Some of this may be changing. A new organization, the International Association of Psychology and Counseling, has a stated goal of advocating for viewpoint diversity. There is an opportunity for organizations such as these to begin building resources of patients and providers.

But more is needed. We could use journals, grants, and conferences to develop best practices. We need to document case studies, do research, and develop evidence-based protocols. Ive recently begun offering services related to these issues, but we need clinics offering these services in every locale.

If people knew that therapy for these issues was available, many more would likely seek care. It can be revolutionary to have confidential spaces where people can speak together openly about taboo thoughts, conflicted feelings, dilemmas, and questions. This could help people speak up and organize against work orthodoxies in powerful ways.

Therapy is often a place where people find their voice. As they open up about controversial questions and feelings, they learn more about who they are and what they believe. They can learn to work through difficult feelings, develop their ideas, engage in dialogue with others, and communicate their experiences in a productive way, rather than acting out destructively.

A lack of mental health services for people with unorthodox viewpoints can affect peoples mental health, but it can also affect our culture more broadly. As more people feel voiceless and unable to process difficult experiences, dialogue and relationships can suffer. Over time, these problems can corrode discourse throughout society. Most likely, they already have.

Andrew Hartz, Ph.D., is a clinical psychology professor at Long Island University inBrooklyn, a writing fellow at Heterodox Academy, and a psychotherapist in privatepractice in New York City.Michael Olan provided research and editorial assistance to this article. Hes adoctoral student at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Visit link:

Therapy Needed For The Non-Woke - The Federalist

Transgender-identifying swimmer Lia Thomas a man who claims to be a woman and recently dominated his NCAA female competitors finally broke his silence with an interview on ABCs Good Morning America, and heres what he wants you to know: Im happy.

Thomas was thrust into the limelight after the lackluster male swimmer took wrong-sex hormones for a year and subsequently the womens Division I swimming title, causing quite a stir. When ABC interviewer Juju Chang asked about his competitive advantage the question Thomass teammates, opponents, and critics cant get past Thomas shrugged it off.

Theres a lot of factors that go into a race and how well you do, and the biggest change for me is that Im happy, Thomas said in an undeniably male pitch. This happy theme permeated the whole interview, interspersed with an air of entitlement from the swimmer.

I also dont need anybodys permission to be myself and to do the sport that I love, Thomas declared, adding later, Trans people dont transition for athletics. We transition to be happy and authentic and our true selves.

The kicker for Thomas, which is obvious to the watching world, is that actually, yes, you do need permission to be yourself and play the sport you love when that self defies the laws of biology and that sport is a collegiate program designed for the very real, immutable category of women. Any other student-athlete knows that if her authentic self is obese or jacked up on steroids, for instance, she will not get permission to play a collegiate sport, her sincere love for it notwithstanding. Where does the gender-bending left get the idea that theyre entitled to inclusion without permission?

The sorry state of the NCAA and the countrys cultural mores at large are actually in many ways a result of the Lia Thomas mindset, more commonly known as narcissism. When science and empirical data have said, like Chang, that males have a competitive advantage over females, the transgender-allied left, like Thomas, have dismissed it with a Theyre happy! and a Let them be their authentic selves!

The rejoinder is obvious and unavoidable: What about the very real women whom Thomas dominated by virtue of him being a man? What about their happiness and their authentic selves as the best female swimmers? What about his troubled peers who have been flashed by Thomass penis in the womens locker room and been forced to expose themselves in front of him? Although a happy Thomas insists, Trans women are not a threat to womens sports, what are the runners-up supposed to do with the mountain of evidence to the contrary?

The rules of the game have been set not by logic nor reason nor basic and once-widely accepted facts, but by the narcissism of the minority. Perhaps if their entitlement and lack of empathy rise to the level of diagnosable narcissism the correlation of that narcissism with the trans-allied left should be no surprise.

After all, research shows a leftist ideology, mental health issues, and LGBT identity go hand in hand in whats known as the mental health-sexuality-liberalism nexus. If Thomas actually has gender dysphoria, perhaps that mental health issue corresponds with other mental health problems, narcissistic personality disorder being no exception.

The predictability of the narcissism, however, is no excuse for it. Nor is empathy for those with mental health problems a license to indulge them, especially when it comes at the expense of others. Thomas and the swimmers gender-bending allies have declared that their delusional and norm-shattering behavior is fine because theyre happy, but thats textbook narcissism, and weve enabled it far too long.

See the original post:

Lia Thomas Is 'Happy' To Force Everyone Else To Deal With Narcissism - The Federalist

Democrats are silent after more than 30 people lost their lives this weekend to violent crime waves that continually sweep through the nations cities.

Why hasnt President Joe Biden, who recently visited Uvalde, Texas, after 19 children and two adults died in a school shooting, tweeted something or planned trips to Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, where violence and shootings took the lives of dozens of people including children? Why hasnt Robert Francis Beto ORourke executed another political stunt at a local press conference somewhere to call attention to a rise in domestic altercations that escalate into shootings? Mostly because none of the violence was politically advantageous for them.

The violence that took the lives of dozens of Americans over Memorial Day weekend either did not involve firearms such as AR-15s, which the left has openly admitted they want to confiscate, or occurred under the wrong conditions for grandstanding. Democrats pick and choose which tragedies to milk for their anti-gun agenda based on how much political leverage firearm-related deaths grant them.

In the case of Uvalde and every other school shooting, Democrats see the deaths of children to erroneously labeled assault rifles as an opportunity to move their gun-control agenda forward. They use families mourning to push do-somethingism on the American public and beg for compromise from their congressional peers.

As a result, squishy Republicans cede key ground in the Second Amendment preservation fight. Instead of hosting a constructive debate on the root causes of school shootings perpetrated by young males, they let their Democrat colleagues steamroll them into submission to pass legislation that only restricts law-abiding citizens right to buy and use guns.

This selective virtue-signaling is condemnable considering the record crime most U.S. cities have faced over the last two years. Where were the Twitter warrior AOCs and Sen. Chris Murphys of the world when urban crime and violence skyrocketed in 2020? They were cheering on, or at least caving to, the rioters who looted and set fire to government buildings during the summer of rage. They didnt care that dozens of people died as of result of the mostly peaceful protests that caused an estimated $2 billion in damages.

Its the same reason Biden avoided visiting Waukesha after a black man with a well-documented vengeance against white people plowed through a crowd of them at a Christmas parade with his vehicle. Sixty-two people left that day with injuries and six died, but all the president could muster was a small mention of the horrific act of violence during his presidential remarks on Covid-19 and the economy.

And its the same reason why corporate media largely ignores any stories detailing how good guys with guns prevent bad guys from hurting others.

Just last week, a West Virginia woman shot and killed a man who began firing his illegally obtained AR-15 at a crowd. Local officials acknowledged that her quick thinking and courage saved many lives, but the left will ignore it because it hurts their case to disarm Americans.

Democrats speak out against violence only when its useful for them and their anti-gun agenda. Their sadness about the lives lost in Uvalde might be authentic, but their outrage that Americans are losing lives to crime is not equally applied.

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.

View post:

You Can Tell Democrats' Gun-Control Goals Based On Which Tragedy They Exploit - The Federalist