Category Archives: Federalist

By now its maddeningly clear a perfect storm of institutional failure allowed the Uvalde shooter to carry out his ugly plan. The school was not adequately secured and the police were unacceptably slow. Every day, their bungled response looks worse. If the school door had been locked, if the police had been there sooner, if the resource officer had responded, if every classroom had been locked

At so many steps leading up to the first victims death, the bare minimum of protocol seems likely to have stopped the shooter before the killing began.

His trail of warning signs, both online and offline, is equally maddening. Of course, its easy for Monday Morning Quarterbacks in media to cast judgment with the benefit of hindsight. The shooter is to blame for these deaths; they are not the fault of anyone who followed him on social media or had a strange discussion with him.

We have no idea if anyone could have changed this outcome. We dont know all the facts. We dont know what people did or did not do to intervene.

Still, a student who dressed in all black, attended school rarely, and recently went to live with his grandmother after fighting with his mother to the point where law enforcement intervened, should not have been showing off his weapons online without a parent or school counselor knowing and acting. A community should function as a net, knit tightly enough to catch people at risk of falling. Were all part of that social fabric, burdened with a duty to our community.

In many American communities like Uvalde Countywhere poverty exceeds the national average while education and income levels lag itthat social fabric is frayed and more people are falling through the cracks. From single parenting to the trauma of divorce to religious involvement, the civic fabric of America has frayed since the 1960s in ways that have disparately affected poor and working-class Americans, as Brad Wilcox once wrote.

People rightfully feel like we fail to learn from these tragedies, allowing the pattern to repeat itself year after year with insufficient change. The public is welcome to debate guns, but wherever you fall on that question, we shouldnt be distracted from also looking inward. All of us have a lot to learn about contributing to communities so tightly knit, they create fewer monsters and catch the ones that exist before tragedy unfolds.

This list comes with the important caveat that we dont yet know definitively what any individual knew or did about his concerning encounters with the shooter. We also dont know if anything would have turned out differently. Indeed, families of the Parkland shooting victims accused the FBI of negligence for failing to act on tips and won a major settlement.

As a whole, however, these examples paint a shocking picture of how many people knew from different information the failing high school senior was clearly volatile and arming himself. Could more have been done? In the future, we should all learn to be attentive students and adults, asking for people to check in on struggling peers and then making sure those check-ins result in longterm oversight from family, friends, and schools when warranted.

From the New York Times: It did not go without notice when an 18-year-old who frequently sparred with classmates before dropping out of high school posted a picture of two long, black rifles on his Instagram story. The image was startling enough that a freshman at Uvalde High School sent it to his older cousin on Saturday morning and asked who would have let the former student obtain the weapons.

Its not snitching to tell a school counselor that a volatile classmate with a history of strange behavior is posting guns on Instagram. Ramos wasnt an untroubled young sportsman getting into sharpshooting or hunting.

Schools can sort through reports made in bad faith and determine whether to get in touch with someones parents. Kids should be comfortable taking that step when its so obvious they said days before the tragedy the shooters behavior made them scared to go to school.

Tell someone. A counselor, a pastor, a parent. Theres no guarantee itll work, but this particular warning sign is a hard one to read about knowing how many students likely saw it.

Authorities say the shooters sister flatly refused to buy him a gun last September. Without casting judgments on an individual who 1) made a good decision and 2) could have made other good decisions we dont yet know about, its fair to at least say that ideally a sister who knew enough to reject the September request would also be sure to track whether her unstable brother had successfully gotten ahold of weapons after his 18th birthday. Maybe she feared her brother, I dont know.

But hed recently fought with his mother and moved in with his grandparents. If not for the sake of the community, a sister would ideally be concerned enough to closely monitor her brother for the sake of their loved ones in close proximity. Thats understandably more difficult when your immediate family unit is physically split up and relationships are strained.

In March, the shooter apparently told friends he planned to buy a gun. Again, when students become aware a classmate who is clearly trouble is also planning to buy a gun, its worth at least letting an adult know they might want to check in.

According to CNN, A former classmate said the gunman texted him photos of a firearm he had and a bag full of ammunition days before the attack.

I was like, bro, why do you have this? and he was like, Dont worry about it, the friend who said he was somewhat close to the shooter, told CNN.

In a healthy friendship, that would ideally not happen without some action being taken to check in with adults who then could have pieced together the puzzle.

Summarizing a Washington Post report, the Daily beast noted: Former high school classmate Nadia Reyes recalled to thePostthat he had posted an Instagram story showing himself screaming at his motherwho has not commented publiclyand calling her a bitch as she tried to kick him out of the house. He posted videos on his Instagram where the cops were there, Reyes told thePost. Hed be screaming and talking to his mom really aggressively.

This establishes that some cross-section of the shooters Instagram followers saw him both verbally abusing his mother to the point where law enforcement got involved and saw him with firearms. That combination is obviously cause for alarm, sufficient to warrant at least a note to a school counselor.

Teenagers can share their deepest secrets with strangers on the other side of the world in a matter of seconds on social media. Its an uncharted territory for human interaction.

In the Uvalde shooters case, hed been telling a 15-year-old girl in Germany for days he had a secret. According to the Times, she said that even when he said he was about to attack the elementary school, she was not sure if he was serious and did not ask a friend to contact the police until after she saw the shooting had taken place, something she regrets.

Nobody wants schools or the feds to create an abusable snitch network. Most people who make crazy threats on the Internet probably dont act on them. Its a sad day when children on the other side of the world are a last resort for communities here at home.

This girl was in Germany, but if she happened to be in America, Im not sure the shooters threat would have been taken seriously either. Students likely need clearer guidance on what constitutes a reportable warning sign and how to report them without fear of retribution.

A 17-year-old California girl who met the shooter on Instagram said he would reply to my stories with things like i wanna kill u or like i hate you.

Heres more from the Times: Late last year, she said, Mr. Ramos asked her out. When she turned him down, she said Mr. Ramos began creating different accounts on Instagram to send her harassing messages such as I hate you or Im going to hurt you. Still, though, Ms. Baxter said that she had not been afraid of Mr. Ramos, saying she had never expected him to pursue violence, let alone a mass killing.

The shooter reportedly moved in with his grandparents after fighting with his mother.

According to the Daily Beast article, the shooters grandfather Ronald Reyes toldABC Newsthat his grandson didnt go to school last year and spent a lot of time alone in his room in his grandparents modest bungalow in Uvalde. He didnt talk very much, said Reyes.

A kid with that many problems, who fought so much with his mother than cops were involved, shouldnt be able to use the internet without supervision, nor should he be able to buy and post pictures of weapons without triggering some recourse from his immediate family. The shooter nearly killed his grandmother, so he may have known she would be an obstacle to his plan. Heightened supervision, which was clearly warranted, could have stopped him from getting to that morning in the first place.

Again, we may learn in the weeks and months ahead that someone did flag this post to adults in the community. Theres no guarantee any of these actions would have prevented the shooting, as we learned tragically in Parkland. Most importantly, the Uvalde community has been remarkably strong and supportive since unthinkable evil visited their doorstep.

At the very least, all of the above examples still could haveshould havetriggered reasonable measures that may have made a major difference for the Uvalde community. Working to create a strong family, strong marriage, and strong community ties at church or school may be difficult in downtrodden localities with fewer resources. Theres room for individuals and governments to address those disparities.

But while it may also feel small to take those steps in your own life, social science tells us the ripple effect is huge.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of Federalist Radio Hour. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young Americas Foundation. Shes interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including Fox News Sunday, Media Buzz, and The McLaughlin Group. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center, host of The Hills weekly show Rising Fridays, and a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

See original here:

6 Times A Stronger Civil Society Might Have Prevented Tragedy In Uvalde - The Federalist

When Top Gun came out in 1986, it helped drive a surge of interest in flying for the U.S. military, including a 10 percent spike in service academy applications. Its sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, which came out just ahead of Memorial Day weekend, is chock-full of the same feel-good heroics, guts, and patriotism that made a generation of boys (and a few girls) dream of becoming fighter pilots nearly 40 years ago.

The Pentagon collaborated with producers on the movie, as it has with myriad other military flicks. Now, from ads lined up to accompany the movie to recruitment tables set up outside theaters, the Navy and Air Force are making no secret of using Top Gun: Maverick as a recruiting tool, as well they should. Its a far better promotion for the U.S. military than the embarrassing, woke garbage that equity consultants have been churning out.

A year ago, the U.S. Army released a 2-minute cartoon narrated by Cpl. Emma Malonelord and ostensibly depicting her childhood.

It begins in California with a little girl raised by two moms, she says. Although I had a fairly typical childhood, took ballet, played violin, I also marched for equality. I like to think Ive been defending freedom from an early age, she adds, before detailing the day her moms were married (complete with a colorfully animated wedding).

She then talks about being a sorority girl surrounded by other strong women, before realizing she had so much privilege that she finally decided to have her own adventures like her friend that was studying abroad in Italy. So, Emma joined the Army.

The ad makes our military the members of which I deeply respect appear instead like a bunch of kindergarteners. Emmas reason for joining up is selfish; its not because she wants to sacrifice for a cause she believes in, its because her friends are studying abroad in Italy or climbing Mount Everest and she wants to do something exciting too.

Its painfully obvious that the point of the ad was to check boxes in the Armys department of showing how much the Pentagon loves lesbian weddings. The animation is reminiscent of a B-list kids TV show, and so is the sugary tone of the voiceover.

There is zero in the video to inspire any kind of bravery, sacrifice, duty, honor, integrity, excellence, teamwork, or respect. Like the short-lived Army of One slogan of 20 years ago, this ad is all about being your best self and fulfilling your personal needs and desires. Its more evocative of a cheesy Instagram caption than a profession that is aptly described as service.

Unlike that dumpster fire of an ad campaign which was only one video in a series of five Top Gun (both movies) gave viewers something to be inspired by besides themselves. There are strong themes of sacrifice, bravery, and overcoming personal challenges for the good of the mission and your team. While Maverick and Iceman might be a smidge too cocky, they have the exploits to back it up; theyre not talking about their sororities or shattering some stereotypes.

Besides that, theres the fact that Top Gun actually makes the military look cool. Who sees the epic dogfights, the sharp uniforms, the shiny aviator glasses, the daring flybys, or the dramatic takeoffs without wanting to be that legendary? I doubt anyone who watched the Armys cartoon walked away with the same impression.

It turns out, Tom Cruise and company are far better at making a compelling promo for the U.S. military than Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-crazed bureaucrats at the Pentagon are. (The ad is no one-off; Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told Congress he wanted to understand white rage, while Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday defended the Navys inclusion of Ibram X. Kendis How to Be an Antiracist as recommended reading for sailors.)

The military isnt going to fix its alarming recruiting lull with kitschy be yourself cartoons. Nor are movies like Top Gun enough to combat our cultural war of attrition on concepts like duty, responsibility, and sacrifice. But at least the latter is speaking the right language.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Read more:

'Top Gun' Is A Better Recruiting Ad Than That Woke Army Cartoon - The Federalist

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

On "Fox & Friends Weekend," The Federalist senior contributor Asra Nomani recapped nearly 500 pages of emails from the National School Board Association and former interim executive director Chip Slaven's claims regarding a letter sent to the White House that compared parents to domestic terrorists. Normani claimed Slaven and the NSBA were part of a "political operation" designed to target parents.

MAN BEHIND INFAMOUS NSBA LETTER SAYS ORGANIZATION'S LEADERS COMPLETELY BACKSTABBED HIM

People gather to protest different issues including the boards handling of a sexual assault that happened in a school bathroom in May, vaccine mandates and critical race theory during a Loudoun County School Board meeting in Ashburn, Virginia, U.S., October 26, 2021. Picture taken October 26, 2021. (REUTERS/Leah Millis)

ASRA NOMANI: The 500 pages of emails are filled with the executive office email addresses because they were White House staffers that were involved in it. I didn't know all of these people because these are those unknown people that are behind the scenes in the Biden administration right now. But they're all folks that are high up in the Education Department, Justice Department, White House, as a Democratic political operative. So this was absolutely a political operation. And again, parents, we prevailed because we ended up dismantling this very toxic, toxic machine that was brought against us. And just to keep it real. I just want folks to know that we have got parents from Texas to Massachusetts and Oregon still rapping on the doors of school boards, trying to be heard, and please don't ever give up.

WATCH THE FULL VIDEO BELOW:

Go here to see the original:

How parents took down the toxic machine of the National School Board Association - Fox News

The United States presidential election of 1796 was the first contested American presidential election and the only one to elect a President and Vice President from opposing tickets.

With incumbent President George Washington having refused a third term in office, incumbent Vice President John Adams of Massachusetts was a candidate for the presidency on the Federalist Party ticket with former Governor Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina as the next most popular Federalist. Their opponents were former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson of Virginia along with Senator Aaron Burr of New York on the Democratic-Republican ticket. At this point, each man from any party ran alone, as the formal position of "running mate" had not yet been established.

Unlike the previous election where the outcome had been a foregone conclusion, Democratic-Republicans campaigned heavily for Jefferson, and Federalists campaigned heavily for Adams. The debate was an acrimonious one, with Federalists tying the Democratic-Republicans to the violence of the French Revolution and the Democratic-Republicans accusing the Federalists of favoring monarchism and aristocracy. In foreign policy, the Democratic-Republicans denounced the Federalists over Jay's Treaty, perceived as too favorable to Britain, while the French ambassador embarrassed the Democratic-Republicans by publicly backing them and attacking the Federalists right before the election.

Although Adams won, Thomas Jefferson received more electoral votes than Pinckney and was elected Vice-President.

Read more here:

Presidential Election of 1796 - 270toWin

Russias invasion of Ukraine is illuminating an ugly truth: the anti-fracking war on Americas energy security is being waged by well-funded, radical U.S. environmental groups, as well as interests tied directly to Vladimir Putin. For years, the U.S. government has investigated Russian financial ties to environmental groups that push for ending U.S. fossil fuel production and have successfully shut down fracking sites and pipelines, to the detriment of U.S. workers and consumers.

Who benefits? Putin, because the desolation of U.S. energy security has bolstered state-owned Gazprom and his dangerous geopolitical aims.

Before the war on Ukraine, the U.S. Congress began exposing connections between Russia and little-known foundations that donate to major environmental groups such as Sierra Club and National Resource Defense Council (NRDC). The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a 2014 report noting a small group of rich Americans was controlling environmental groups and collaborating with questionable offshore funders to maximize support. In 2017, two congressmen called for further investigation of the connection between these funders and Russia.

These suspicious donations to radical environmental groups could be part of the larger geopolitical strategy Putin used to execute greater control over Europe before his invasion of Ukraine. For instance, if the United States had ramped up natural gas production, Putin could not today be blackmailing Poland and Bulgaria by cutting off their energy supply. Had America allowed more investment in fracking and other energy production, Putin would not have strategic leverage over Europe.

Most Americans know Putin does not want to see the United States succeed. What they may not know is these anti-energy groups acting under the guise of environmental justice are funded by a handful of wealthy Americans who are either blindingly nave to the role they have played in supporting Putins agenda or willfully complicit.

There is no more notorious example than the Heinz Endowment, led by Teresa Heinz, wife of U.S. climate envoy John Kerry. Under her watch, the endowment has deployed at least $13 million toward anti-shale activism since 2008, killing jobs and prosperity in their own Pennsylvania backyard and unnecessarily forcing America to give up market share to tyrants like Putin.

The Heinz fortune funds dozens of Pennsylvania groups engaged in killing pipelines and natural gas production. One of their beneficiaries, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, is successfully fighting to keep a ban on natural gas production in the Delaware River Basin that is preventing access to vast new reserves.

In fact, Pennsylvania, where the Heinz family made their fortune and is still based, is bearing the brunt of this campaign. The latest example is the Keystone States addition to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Sierra Club and NRDC lobbied in favor of expanding the interstate compact to tax carbon emissions to include Pennsylvania, even though scientists at Penn State found 86 percent of carbon emissions will simply move to nearby states.

Killing pipelines, banning fracking, and implementing RGGI mean more energy will be produced in other countries with more emissions. Russian gas emits 40 percent more emissions over its lifecycle than U.S. natural gas; meanwhile, U.S. LNG is improving air quality in China. At the same time, Pennsylvanians could lose 22,000 jobs and consumers will face a 30 percent increase in their electricity bills.

Were already seeing the unfortunate effects of these harmful policies elsewhere throughout the U.S. Under pressure from these same environmental groups, President Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline, eliminating the projected 60,000 indirect jobs, 11,000 direct jobs, and $800 million in wages, that would have resulted from this important project.

As Putin now leverages his energy dominance as a tool of coercion and his geopolitical strategy is brutally playing out for all the world to see, Heinz and other radical environmental groups can no longer claim they are innocent arbiters of environmental justice when their actions have, intentionally or not, aided and abetted him.

Isnt it time for these Americans to focus on policies that protect the earth, advance American energy security, and counter Americas enemies?

Victoria Coates, a distinguished fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, served as senior policy adviser to the secretary of energy in the Trump administration. Jennifer Stefano is executive vice president of the Commonwealth Foundation and an Independent Womens Forum visiting fellow.

Read more here:

How US Climate Extremists Are Funding Russia's Threats To The Globe - The Federalist

Since its inception, the United States has been required to strike a balance between its role in global affairs and its interests at home. In a letter to New Hampshire senator and Federalist William Plumer, Thomas Jefferson noted that I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.

Jeffersons assessment is apt and is as relevant today as it was when it was penned in 1816. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has offered a stark reminder of the cruelties of war.

Although we sympathize with the resistance to Vladimir Putins invasion, we cannot bankrupt our country by becoming a belligerent in another foreign war. With a national debt exceeding 120 percent of gross national product, rampant inflation not seen since the 1980s, and significant supply chain disruptions, the United States must first secure its own economy before assisting foreign states.

The United States spent nearly $5 trillion in response to the outbreak of Covid-19, leading to some of the highest sustained levels of inflation in U.S. history. In March, inflation hit a 40-year high, with gasoline prices up 48 percent year-over-year and energy prices spiking by approximately 32 percent in the same span of time.

Food prices have increased by nearly 9 percent. Used vehicle prices are up 35 percent.One would be hard-pressed to find an American consumer who has not felt the pain of a deteriorating economy caused by massive federal spending.

Thoughtless government spending has not only jeopardized the economic well-being of individual Americans but has also exacerbated the existing threat of our exorbitant national debt. I have repeatedly stated that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. In the last two years alone, the United States has borrowed more money than at any time in its history.

When the Ukraine Supplement Appropriations Act of 2022 was introduced in the Senate, I offered anamendment requiring a known, effective, and independent inspector general to oversee how funds were spent. If the Senate were to adopt a measure borrowing $40 billion to support a foreign nation, then the American people at least deserve to know that their hard-earned dollars were put to good use. If there is one thing that we should learn from the war in Afghanistan, it is that the chaos of war provides excellent cover for those seeking to defraud American taxpayers.

If the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022 is adopted, the United States will have sent $60 billion to Ukraine since 2014. This amount is nearly ten times the $6.4 billion we spend on cancer research every year.

Prioritizing the interest of other nations over our own will not end well. The present assault on monetary discipline is untenable, and unless we end this fiscal insanity, a day of reckoning awaits us. Not only are we flirting with financial ruin, but we also risk inadvertently entering a war with another major power. President Bidens call for regime change in Russia, coupled with Congresss willingness to provide seemingly limitless aid to Ukraine, has made our final objective unclear.

Congress recently approved more than $14 billion in aid to Ukraine, and the United States has nearly emptied our armories of critical and costly weaponry to support Ukraine.If the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, as currently drafted, is adopted, our total aid to Ukraine will almost equal Russias annual military spending. Most Americans, especially our veterans who have seen firsthand the consequences of endless wars and regime changes, oppose war with Russia and support a reduction in U.S military engagement.

In times like these, we would be well-advised to heed Jeffersons wisdom and pursue a course of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Rand Paul, MD, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

Read this article:

Spending Mindlessly On Ukraine Is A Threat To US National Security - The Federalist

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently signed into law a $220 billion budget riddled with wasteful spending, including $220 million forfree Medicaidfor illegal immigrants and a $600 million subsidy for a new Buffalo Bills stadium, according to theNew York Post.

Federal law prohibits federal tax dollars from going toward Medicaid for illegal immigrants, so New York taxpayers will pick up the tab for healthcare for up to 20,000 illegal immigrants living in the Empire State.

Those making less than $18,754 would qualify for the program, though many other details regarding eligibility have yet to be announced.

Hochul, a Buffalo resident, pushed for her pet project of giving $600 million to gift the NFL a new stadium, and is part of why the budget was delayed for days.

In addition to state funding, Eerie County will contribute $250 million to the project, making it the largest public subsidy for a stadium in the United States,according to Bloomberg. The NFL and the Bills will only pay $550 million toward the new stadium.

The New York State budget also gave $350 million in capital funding to the New York City Housing Authority, which is struggling financially, as thousands of residents arebehind on rent payments.

New York state already has some of thehighest debt in the nation. The last thing New York needs is more wasteful spending that continues to burden future generations.

This article is republished, with permission, from RealClearPolicy.com.

More:

New York To Pay $220 Million Next Year For Illegal Migrants' Health Care - The Federalist

As the fear of Covid wanes with its news coverage, one of the remaining vestiges of the narrative involves face coverings. The premier journal Science recently published the largest cluster-randomized trial to date on masks, a massive study that the science community had been calling for since the start of the pandemic.

This study divided rural villages in Bangladesh into those encouraged to wear either medical or cloth masks, or no mask. At the conclusion of the trial, participants volunteered information on whether they experienced COVID-like symptoms.

Villagers with self-diagnosed Covid-like symptoms were asked to take an antibody test to determine if they carried SARS-CoV2 antibodies, suggesting they had been infected at some point (i.e., were seropositive). The authors concluded that masks reduced symptomatic seropositivity by 9.5 percent. In response, The Washington Post triumphantly declared: We conducted the largest study on masks and COVID-19: They work.

As with almost everything, the truth is more complicated. In a series of blog posts, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Ben Recht meticulously detailed why he believes the findings more accurately reflect statistical sleight of hand rather than actionable data: One of the dark tricks of biostatistics is moving away from absolute case counts to measures of risk such as relative risk reduction, efficacy all these measures are relative, and they tend to exaggerate effects.

The Bangladesh study authors did not include the total number of symptomatic seropositive villagers in their paper, forcing Recht to calculate those numbers. There were1,106 symptomatic individuals confirmed seropositive in the control group (i.e., unmasked) and1,086 such individuals in the treatment (i.e., cloth or medical mask) group. The difference between the two groups was small: only20 casesout of over 340,000 individuals over a span of 8 weeks. I have a hard time going from these numbers to the assured conclusions that masks work.

Even the prestigious journal Nature reported the study findings in a deceptive way, with a large bold title stating: Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet. However, below the bold title is a less enthusiastic, small-print interpretation of the findings: A rigorous study finds that surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short.

Alarmingly, the Bangladesh study authors doubled down on their findings: we persuaded only about a third of the population to change their masking behavior. It is possible that more aggressive efforts could lead to even more change and produce greater health benefits. Was more persuasion (i.e., coercion) really what was lacking in our pandemic response?

A quick look at data from New York City in 2020 reveals their epidemic curve was already falling before mask mandates were in place, and that coercion in the form of hefty fines did nothing to prevent the next wave, whose peak was higher than that of the previous waves pre-mask mandate peak and lasted longer despite the coercive measures.

The bottom line: any policy so intrusive and divisive as forced masking should have significant, indisputable effectiveness in real-world application. The largest mask study to date failed in this regard, yet public health authorities and most scientists continue to cling to reflexive health policies, while politicized journalists are complicit in amplifying their one-sided message.

Pat Fidopiastis, Ph.D., is a professor of microbiology at California State Polytechnic University.

See the article here:

Why That Big Study On Face Covers Didn't Find What News Claimed - The Federalist

Mega-billionaire Elon Musk confessed on Wednesday that the Democrat partys penchant for division & hate is pushing him to vote for Republicans.

In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party, the worlds richest man tweeted. But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold .

Political attacks on me will escalate dramatically in coming months, he noted hours before disclosing his new party affiliation.

Musks admission comes just two days after he told the All-In podcast that despite overwhelmingly and historically voting for Democrats, which he said are overly controlled by the unions and by the trial lawyers, particularly class-action lawyers, he will be voting red in the next election.

I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear, Musk said. Now this election I will.

The Tesla CEO also took several jabs at President Joe Biden for failing to get anything done compared to the Trump administration.

The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter, Musk said. The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.

Musk is in the process of purchasing Twitter, owning the libs, and correcting Big Techs very far-left bias after making a $44 billion offer.

The Tesla CEO revealed this week that he will not go through with the deal unless Twitter can show proof of <5% spam accounts.

My offer was based on Twitters SEC filings being accurate. Yesterday, Twitters CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5% [spam accounts]. This deal cannot move forward until he does, Musk wrote on Tuesday morning.

When Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal claimed the company has a system designed to curb online bots, Musk replied with a poop emoji.

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.

Read this article:

Elon Musk: Democrat Hate Drives Me To Vote Republican - The Federalist

AsBuzzFeed contemplates its future, the website should reconsider its approach to motherhood.

The media outlet is rethinking its news division because it loses money, offering voluntary buyouts.BuzzFeed would likely gain some mom consumers if it changed its tune on motherhood.

In April, BuzzFeed ran an article headlined,Mothers Are Revealing How They Realized They Regret Having Children And How Theyre Coping Now, And Theyre Such Nuanced And Valid Feelings. The first mom the article quotes said, I regret having children because of whats going on in the world. I feel a SEVERE feeling of doom and anxiety when I think about her future. She will probably never be able to afford a house and struggle with debt, climate change, scarce resources, and inequality. I am truly terrified, and I feel so guilty. If I was childless today, I would 100% not have any children.

This is such a pessimistic view of motherhood and society. Yet it is a view that is getting more attention. Prince Harry made headlines when he said he wouldlimit his family to two childrenbecause of environmental concerns. Prince Harry is not alone in his thinking.

Among Americans aged 18 to 49 who dont have children yet, 44 percent in a Pew survey say they dont think its likely they ever will. Of these, 5 percent attribute their reluctance to climate change or the environment, while 56 percent said they just dont feel like it. Another 9 percent attribute their attitude to the state of the world.

In the article, another mom lamented that she did not have time for herself because of her kids: I have a preschooler. Things I dont like: I cant go anywhere alone. I cant have quiet time to myself unless theyre sleeping. Im always being touched. Im always being asked to do things that they cant do on their own. I have to do daily care tasks for them like bathing and making meals.

When I read this, my mind quickly turned to my children climbing on my lap asking for one more bite, please, mama of my oatmeal while I was trying to eat it that morning. This little routine is inconvenient but is such a happy memory for me.

Some responsibilities of parenthood are more challenging than others. I write this as a parent of small children who wakes up physically sore from holding and carrying my children. Yet very little of what we see elevated in popular culture focuses on the joy and satisfaction that nurturing children brings mothers also.

It seems like popular culture spends more time promoting the wine mom narrative that women need alcohol to get through mothering and less time honoring women for the work they put into mothering. Just because caregiving can be tough doesnt mean it is not worth our time, shouldnt be done, or is bad. While not the same, no one would say that about other pursuits, such as making a scientific discovery, accomplishing major health or fitness goals, or taking on a challenging career.

For our society to exist, children need caregivers willing to teach them everything from the ABCs to how to get dressed. Whats missing from the regretful parenting genre of articles is the joy of parentingthe first steps, the first hugs, and so much more.

This negative coverage of motherhood is not new to BuzzFeed. In February, BuzzFeed ran a story headlined,Women Who Regret Giving Birth Are Sharing Why, And Its Sparking A Much Needed Conversation.

In 2021, BuzzFeed published articles including,Parents Who Regret Having Children Are Making Anonymous Confessions Online, And Its Taboo But Important;15 Parents Shared Why They Regret Having Kids, And Their Reasons Why Are 100% Valid; and19 Women Got Brutally Honest About Why They Dont Want Kids.

We get it, BuzzFeed wants its readers to know that not everyone is happy with her decision to have children. But BuzzFeed is doing more than this. It is promoting a narrative that conflicts with what Americans want.

A huge majority of Americans have or want children. Only5 percent of American adultsdo not want children. Among Americans aged 45 and older, only 7 percent with children said if they could do it over again, they would not have children. And 50 percent of those who didnt have kids said they would have had at least one.

Stories about parental regret might get clicks, but BuzzFeed acting as a PR machine against motherhood might also influence the decision some people make about parenthood. And BuzzFeed isnt alone.

For more examples: The Atlantic ran an article headlined,The Two Reasons Parents Regret Having Kids. Womens magazineElle published a piece,My Biggest Regret In Life Is Having My Daughter.Self magazine published,10 Women Look Back on Living Childfree by Choice.

Part of the coverage issue on motherhood might be that the women who opt-in to motherhood are opting out of working at popular publications to care for their children, so their voice is missing. What is left are more voices of regretful moms or women who have chosen to live childfree.

American moms should speak up to make sure that regretful motherhood doesnt become the dominant narrative of our time. One of the most countercultural actions a mom can take, it seems, is to write about how she likes motherhoodand maybe tag BuzzFeed.

Editors note: We welcome submissions about experiencing the joys and rising to the challenges of motherhood here at The Federalist. See submissions instructions here.

Read the original here:

BuzzFeed Should Stop Publishing Only Negative Takes On Motherhood - The Federalist