Category Archives: Federalist

On Monday, May 9, Russia will hold its annual celebration marking the defeat of Germany in World War Two. Since 1945, Moscow has hosted a grand military parade in Red Square with dignitaries reviewing the troops from atop the mausoleum than contains Vladimir Lenins tomb.

During the long twilight of the Cold War, there was an entire sub-branch of Kremlinology dedicated to analyzing who was invited onto the mausoleum, with its top tier having room for about 20 people. This will be the first Victory Day Parade ever to see Russia involved in a conventional war in Europe, hence, the symbolism of who is, or is not, on the mausoleum may take on greater significance.

Adding further intrigue are reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to soon undergo cancer surgery, temporarily transferring power to Nikolai Patrushev, a former intelligence and security officer who serves as Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Patrushev is said to be even more ruthless than Putin.

For the past nine years, General of the Army Sergey Shoygu has presided as the parade inspector. For eight of those years, General of the Army Oleg Salyukov has been the parade commander. Will either reprise their roles, given the crippling corruption and incompetence hobbling the Russian military that occurred under their watch?

Of note, General Valery Gerasimov was the parades commander from 2009 to 2012. Putin ordered Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, to personally take command of Russias renewed offensive to the north of the Donbas Basin in Ukraines east, He arrived in the region on April 27. Reports suggest he was wounded in the leg on May 1 by a Ukrainian artillery strike.

But Russias war against Ukraine has not gone according to plan. The initial attempt to topple the government in Kyiv in the days after the Feb. 24 invasion failed. Expectations for a quick victory were built on a wobbly three-legged stool.

The first leg was Putins own extensively prepared claim that Ukraine isnt a real nation and that its always been a part of Russia. The second leg was Russias relatively easy victory in 2014 in Crimea and in the eastern majority ethnic Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk at a time when Ukraines pro-Russian president had neglected the armed forces, leaving the nation largely defenseless. The third leg of this now broken stool was built from Gerasimovs theories on modern so-called hybrid warfare.

In speeches and papers, Gen. Gerasimov suggested that successful Russian operations achieve information and psychological dominance over the enemy. To do this, chaos must be sown in the initial period of war even before the first kinetic shots are fired. This can only be done by ignoring the traditional lines between war and peace, and politics and war. Further, and this is important to Western nations that are now finally sending Ukraine the military equipment, ammunition, and spare parts needed to fight, is the fact that hybrid warfare sees the synergy of chaos (nonlinear and nonmilitary tactics) as no longer merely supporting of conventional force, but equivalent to it.

Thus, the widely reported Russian and Chinese cyber-attack on Ukrainian networks initiated before formal hostilities were a form of chaos-seeding, as well as aggressive exploitation of social media to spread false reports and undermine Ukraines standing with Western democracies.

That these hybrid tactics werent enough to win on the cheap doesnt mean that they dont have value. It simply means that Ukraine, having had a near-death experience in 2014, reformed and upgraded its defenses. Regeneration is an advantage held by representative governments such as Ukraine over security states like Russia. Even imperfect representative governments are more adaptable than the most perfect of security states.

So, Putin is said to need cancer surgery, Gerasimov is wounded, and Russias war on Ukraine is faltering. As I look at the situation more as a former elected lawmaker than as a retired intelligence officer here are the things Ill be watching.

First, is Putin truly ill, and will he go under the knife? For such a powerful, paranoid man with many enemies who likely ordered the assassinations of scores of opponents and dissidents, this decision must weigh heavily. Who can be trusted? While he is vulnerable, any one of a number of people could kill him including Nikolai Patrushev himself.

But the claimed illness brings an upside to Putin. Putin took personal command of the war in late April, handing domestic authority over to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. Putins direct involvement in a war that hasnt panned out, though Russia is firing more long-range missiles deep into Ukraine, means cancer could be a graceful exit or a way to salvage a reputation and a retirement. For Putin, the war might be over, though not likely the war itself.

Russians place great significance on special dates, and few dates are more special than May 9. Not long ago it was suggested that Russias retooled offensive against Ukraine in the east and the south might have borne enough fruit by May 9 to declare victory, real or symbolic. Those thoughts have sailed through the air like a Russian tanks turret, landing with a thud in muddy, bloody reality. Thus, this Victory Day Parade will be devoid of triumph.

Watch carefully the Red Square mausoleum for signs of Russias future.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, special assistant for foreign affairs in the Reagan-era Pentagon, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. He's the author of two books, "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," and "China Attacks," a novel.

Read the original:

Russia's Annual 'Victory Day' Celebration Takes On A Different Meaning This Year - The Federalist

Theres a myth in Indianapolis Republican circles that goes something like this: back in the good old days, the Indiana GOP was made up of high-minded, moderate statesmen from metro Indianapolis like Richard Lugar and Bill Hudnut. Then a bunch of troglodytes from rural Indiana like Mike Pence took over and wrecked the party and state with extreme social conservative policies that are bad for business.

Reality is very different. Since Republicans retook power in the state in 2005, Indiana has largely been run by Republicans from metro Indianapolis who have operated according to a philosophy Mitch Daniels called the truce, or the avoidance of social issues in favor of fiscal and economic development matters.

In terms of actual legislation enacted, Indiana is one of the least socially conservative red states. But the economic results have also been underwhelming to poor for the state and its people. The Indianapolis GOP elites and their truce both effectively disenfranchised and impoverished the states Republican voters, while the left, which never agreed to any part of a truce, made significant advances on its own social policy agenda in the state.

From the standpoint of the average Republican voter, the truce was thus a double failure. Theres no reason to believe abandoning cultural issues in favor of economics will work anywhere.

Daniels truce idea got big press back in 2010 and 2011 as he was exploring a bid for president. Although I dont recall him using the term with regards to how he governed Indiana, this is basically how he operated for eight years.

We see this in his owntop 100 accomplishmentslist thats still on the state website. Not one of them is a social conservative item. Ive never once heard Daniels speak of a social conservative policy with regards to his tenure as governor since leaving office. A newIndianapolis Monthly articleon the states GOP candidly says social conservatives were boxed out during his eight-year tenure.

There were a few social conservative moves during the Daniels admin, but they were pretty small ball, and temporary. The state denied, then reversed the denial of a special license plate for a gay organization in Indy. (The state has numerous special fundraising plates like this). The state also tried to defund Planned Parenthood, a law that wasoverturnedin federal court.

Most notably, at that time 29 states were passing constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. Daniels and the GOP killed one in Indiana procedurally in a state Senate committee. Indiana, one of the reddest states in the country, thus was among a minority of states that never passed a constitutional gay marriage ban.

Pence looms large in the myth, but was only in office for four of the 17-plus consecutive years the GOP has controlled the Indiana governors office. Pence is known almost entirely for the controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This legislation unexpectedly caught the ire of corporations, who threatened to boycott the state if it wasnt repealed. Indiana quickly capitulated.

There was nothing special about this law. It was based on a federal law of the same name signed by President Bill Clinton. Many states have RFRA laws on the books today, including Texas. Indianas number just came up. Pence also signed some anti-abortion legislation that was overturned in the courts, with the exception of rules requiring the burial or cremation of post-abortion remains.

When Pence became vice president, former Daniels campaign manager Eric Holcomb became governor. Holcomb has not only reverted to the Daniels approach of avoiding social conservative issues when he can, he actively signals to the left on social issues, such as by announcing the creation of a state diversity, equity, and inclusion office, doing photo-ops with refugees, and recently vetoing a ban on transgender athletes in girls sports in the states schools (it will almost certainly be overridden by the legislature). He was one of only two GOP governors to veto such a bill.

With the exception of abortion, where there have been some laws passed and regulatory squeezes applied to the industry, theres been much more noise than reality for social or cultural conservatism in Indiana. Plenty of socially conservative bills, or anti-urban bills, or various other proposals that give the left apoplexy get introduced in the legislature every year.

Many of them are frankly wacky. They cause a firestorm in the local press. It may be that business and other lobbies have to invest large amounts of time and political capital stopping these, but almost none ever get enacted.

For example, for multiple years running, conservative state senators have introduced bills to try to cancel public transit expansions in Indianapolis. These are dumb bills, to be sure, but they were successfully killed.

In the supposedly troglodyte, hyper-conservative run Indiana:

In some respects, Indiana is one of the least socially conservative red states in terms of laws enacted. Culturally, the state probably skews more to a folk libertarianism than hard-core social conservatism, but its certainly more conservative than its laws would suggest.

Its important to also note that again, contrary to popular belief, people from metro Indianapolis have been running the state. Daniels, Holcomb, state Speaker of the House Todd Huston, his predecessor Brian Bosma, state GOP chair Kyle Hupfer all from metro Indy. (The state Senate president pro-tempore is also from metro Indy, although from a part more culturally aligned with the rest of the state).

As Indianapolis Monthly observed, The moderate wing of the party was and is a creature of greater Indianapolis. And, To say Daniels remade Indianas Republican politics in his own image would be an understatement.

Pence, the one exception to metro Indianapolis rule, was in power for less than a quarter of the latest Republican streak. Any time he or anyone else attempted or attempts to do anything contrary to the Indianapolis agenda, they are subjected to vicious attacks.

Former Daniels campaign manager Bill Osterle openly tried to recruit someone to primary Pence for re-election (and flirted with running for governor himself). Other Indianapolis-area GOP leaders openly poured scorn on Pence.

When conservative state treasurer Richard Mourdock primaried and defeated long-time Sen. Richard Lugar, big tracts of establishment GOP people voted Democrat to ensure he couldnt win in the general election. (Rank and file conservative voters are ironically much more loyal to the party than the elite, and will vote for Libertarian protest candidates, but rarely for a Democrat. Many Christian leaders openly teach that it is actually a sin to vote for a Democrat. But the leaders have no such loyalty, something I observed first-hand at the Manhattan Institute in 2016, where more of the staff probably voted for Hillary than Trump).

Undoubtedly there are socially conservative factions within the Indiana GOP, particularly in the state legislature. They do have to be reckoned with and sometimes placated. But they have not been the ruling faction for the vast majority of the last 17 years. And their influence has more been felt in areas like limiting local control in municipalities than in cultural priorities.

While the Republican governance agenda is far from reflecting the totality of the preferences of the Indianapolis leadership class as a whole, it is Indianapolis-area moderate Republicans who have disproportionately steered the state. A central organizing principle of their approach since Daniels was elected has de facto been the suppression of the cultural aspirations and preferences of the average Republican voter in the state.

I was a big Daniels supporter, and with the exception of a couple of policy points agreed with almost everything he did. I remain a great admirer of his. The idea of the truce, of trading social priorities for fiscal discipline and economic growth sounded reasonable on paper. But did it work?

Fiscally, it did. Indiana went from a budget deficit to a massive surplus and a AAA credit rating. It is one of the nations fiscally strongest states.

Economically, it was a complete failure. While the state has added population and jobs slightly faster than some other surrounding Rust Belt states, it has been a demographic and economic laggard. Much of the state is shrinking. Its job growth has trailed the nation.

Personal incomes fell from an already low level relative to the nation, making Hoosiers poorer. Wage growth has been nearly the lowest in the nation. Talent was not attracted to the state. In fact, during the 2010s Indiana suffered its worst decade in history for college degree attainment in terms of its performance versus the nation.

The share of high school grads going to college is in decline. Indiana has become a haven for low-wage employers. It is adding mostly jobs for workers with less than a high school diploma in a nation where most job growth has been among the college educated. Many of the states communities continued to physically decay. And social pathologies like opioid addiction exploded.

There have been bright spots. The tech industry in Indianapolis has grown significantly. Life sciences manufacturing is one higher-wage area where Indiana has gotten a number of wins. Yet even the CEO of Indys biggest private employer, Eli Lilly, says the states educational levels arent up to par, and his company has been investing elsewhere.

Indianas conservative voters traded away their social priorities, and in return simply put further behind economically and socially. Again, for them the truce was a double failure.

I dont claim the truce caused bad economic results, or even that Republican leadership is the primary source. I think structural forces beyond the control of the states leaders were more decisive. But the truce certainly didnt make a positive contribution to the economy.

Indiana holds important lessons for both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, it shows that the low taxes/low regulation/libertarianish economic policy approach does not always create growth and prosperity. For both liberals and conservatives, it shows that social policy has far less impact on talent attraction and economic growth than they commonly believe.

When California passed Prop 8 banning gay marriage, was there a mass exodus of people and business out of the state on that account? Not that I saw. In fact, the exodus of people and business has been picking up more recently, as California has become a more solidly progressive environment.

How much credit did Indiana get, and how much high-wage investment did it attract as a result of killing a marriage amendment? None that I saw. Although people still talk endlessly about RFRA even years afterward, the fact that Indiana killed off its marriage amendment is already forgotten. California passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Indiana did not. Think about that.

Or look at Texas, which did pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It also passed an RFRA law, and just passed a very strong anti-abortion bill. None of that seems to have even dented their growth. Facebook even announced a major office expansion in Austin after the abortion law passed.

Texas shows that states can grow while remaining very conservative, while having cities that have their own independent brand and are viewed as progressive. What the state did actually did not harm Texas cities. The Texas-Austin, and Indiana-Indianapolis parallels should be explored in more depth.

This is not to say that Indiana should go hog-wild on social conservative policies or that doing so wouldnt have consequences. Unlike Texas and Florida, which are large, growing states corporations cant ignore, Indiana is a small, stagnant, and weak state that very much can be bullied. A company like Disney, with massive fixed capital investments in Florida, cant walk away from that state.

Conversely, Indianapolis has built its downtown economy around hosting sporting events, and these are extremely mobile. In fact, loss of events has been one of the few things that has happened to cities and states that angered major corporations. Indiana, home to the NCAA, is particularly exposed here. This doesnt just affect Indy either, as Hoosiers love their sports, and many families come to Indianapolis from around the state to take in those events.

But the theories that have animated the GOP governance in the state for the last 17-plus years are wrong. We tried them and they didnt work.

The next time somebody in your state or a Republican in Congress says that suppressing social conservative policies is necessary to ensure economic growth or talent attraction, point them at Indiana and Texas. In light of their results, there is no reason for GOP voters to ever preemptively give up on their cultural policy preferences.

Unfortunately, the lesson Indianas GOP establishment seems to be taking away from this is that they should double down on their existing approach. Again, in their mythos, its rural hilljacks whove been controlling everything and pushing bad policy. So their response is to try to suppress them even further and do more virtue signaling towards DEI, green energy, etc. Look for another attempt to preempt local zoning control over wind and solar projects, for example.

But the natives are getting restless. Opportunistic politicians see the chance to run as Donald Trump-style populists. State Attorney General Todd Rokita, a potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate, has taken this approach. There were23 primary challengesagainst state legislators this year, mostly by more populist conservatives animated by social policy concerns.

As with Trump, it seems possible this will eventually bear fruit. Indeed, we already saw this year the legislature pass multiple socially conservative bills, including constitutional carry (allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit) and the girls sports bill. Indianas governor is constitutionally weak, and his vetoes can be overridden with a simple majority vote. So Holcombs ability to block social conservative legislation is limited. Should Roe v. Wade really be overturned, Indiana would almost certainly pass some sort of strong anti-abortion bill very quickly.

Those who oppose this should take a look in the mirror and acknowledge their own role in making it happen. Just as Trump could never have become the Republican nominee without the failures of the Bush administration, the way for Indianas populist insurgency (to the extent that one exists) has been paved by the double failure of the truce.

Danielss would-be disciples should study the masters playbook more closely. Danielss truce succeeded for him politically because he always made sure to culturally affirm the states people, even if he didnt give them everything they wanted.

He campaigned in an RV. When he traveled around the state, he often went by motorcycle, ate pork tenderloin sandwiches, and stayed in peoples homes instead of hotels. He had a folksy demeanor and never looked down on the people. (He was also able to provide the fiscal austerity and tax reform they wanted, a play that is now exhausted and cant reap political dividends for todays leaders).

Todays metro establishment, as exemplified by Holcomb, loves to poke Hoosier voters in the eye at every opportunity. He loves to do photo-ops with refugees, but when he does something for conservatives like sign a constitutional carry law, he does it quietly. Others increasingly sound like Bill Kristol, George Will, or David French at the national level, using their media access to denigrate the values of average Hoosiers in the press. Daniels would never have made these kinds of unforced errors.

Establishment Republicans should have been aggressively catering to conservative cultural preferences as much as possible. They should have been passing laws for every cultural item not significantly conflicting with the business agenda.

Im not a gun guy myselfin fact, I just shot a rifle and pistol for the very first time ever last weekbut constitutional carry should have happened a long time ago. Holcomb should do a victory tour of the state shooting guns with people or something to celebrate it. They should have been closer to the Florida approach to handling the pandemic. Gov. Ron DeSantis reaped huge gains for his state there.

Much of the woke agenda is extremely unpopular with the public, even in blue states. Look at what happened in Virginia, for example, where Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governors race in what is now a blue state by tapping into discontent with the public schools. The Holcombites could probably learn a lot by looking at Youngkin.

In a democracy, you have to give your voters something of what they want, or somebody else will come along promising to do so. The Indianapolis GOP establishment should have had a positive, prudential cultural agenda that resonated with average Hoosier voters in order to keep them on board with the program. But instead their position has been that the actual Republican voters of the state should be given nothing of his cultural preferences.

Maybe they can fend off the Trumpists. Ive said myself that populist discontent in Indiana still largely manifests itself in the folk libertarian Tea Party register. But if not, they will have no one but themselves to blame for what happens next.

This article is republished, with permission, from the authors Substack.

Read more:

The GOP Pawned Social Conservatism For The Economy And Got Neither - The Federalist

Dear Abby: Im a liberal Democrat and my entire political party is full of insufferable nags. What do I do?!

That was the entire point of New York Times columnist Michelle Goldbergs article this week wherein she fretted that normal Americans are perhaps drifting to the political right because the left has become so indefensibly annoying.

For those who get most of their politics online, this can be what the left looks like a humorless person shaking her head at others insensitivity, she wrote. As a result, an alliance with the countrys most repressive forces can appear, to some, as liberating.

Without saying it outright, Goldberg was getting at the lefts defining qualities today. Its allies have become so miserable, so toxic, so angry and weird that its repulsing voters. They call people racist for any reason at all. They push for the sexualization of children in public schools. And they shut down all discourse that threatens their delicate ideology.

Look whats happening with the Elon Musk-Twitter drama. A billionaire wanted to buy a publishing company not something unheard of and it was an unnecessarily drawn out, messy fight for him to do it because the left wing and Democrats believe they alone dictate what counts as fair discourse.

Goldberg declared the left stagnant, but what she really means is that its miserable. Its stuck in a rut because its activists are singularly motivated by negative emotions now. What do they talk about these days? Persecuting Trump supporters who were in Washington on Jan. 6, Covid as a means of controlling the populace, and equity for anyone who claims to be oppressed (i.e. the Democrat voter base).

When the left becomes grimly censorious, it incubates its own opposition, wrote Goldberg. The internet makes things worse, giving the whole world a taste of the type of irritating progressive sanctimony

She says this like its a problem created by the right, or even unassuming independents who must not be able to distinguish between the online left from the real left. Its not. Its people like Goldberg who wanted to teach children about transgenderism and how it sucks to be white. That people were repulsed by their weird fixations isnt their own fault. Its the fault of the left for being so creepy, unhappy, and maladjusted.

Look at Florida. The hottest controversy there now is whether kindergarten teachers should be able to explain to students what it means to be gender queer. Leftists are adamant that they get to talk about sexual identity with kids. Its dumb. Even a majority of Democrats in that state know its dumb.

Look at the reaction to the district judge in Florida who struck down the airline mask mandate. Leftists are furious that they cant tell people to cover up their noses and mouths anymore (at least for now).

Look at the election of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin. His central campaign theme was that public school kids shouldnt be instilled with the idea that being white is an irredeemable sin. The left nearly needed an exorcism.

Look at your own encounters with these people. The funny thing about left-wingers is that they feel absolutely no reservation about showing up to a social function and popping off with their political opinions on race, sex, and equity.

Any normal person thinks to himself, Id rather not. Leftists dont. They see it as their duty to ensure that everyone knows how they feel (miserable).

You dont like it? Tough.

Goldberg knows her movement is an emotional and mental mess. She just cant bear to break the news.

Theyre always angry. Theyre always upset. Theyve lost their grip. Goldberg could have just said that, but instead, she whined about conservatives and independent Americans who arent into the gross and distasteful things that the movement she belongs to has produced.

In the short term, however, its frightening to think that backlash politics could become somehow fashionable, especially given how stagnant the left appears, she continued.

The left doesnt appear anything. Its undeniably vulgar, and fewer people want to be part of it. Maybe Goldberg should just admit it and stop making excuses for how awful the left-wing Democrat movement is.

Go here to see the original:

It's Not In Your Head: The Left Really Has Become This Miserable - The Federalist

Its only been a couple of days since Elon Musk officially took the Twitter reins completely, and already notable conservative accounts are seeing a remarkable spike in followers. But theres a long road ahead if Musk wants to make the website a haven for free speech, starting with reinstating the account of the 45th president and releasing Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson from Twitter jail.

Free speech haven appears to be precisely Musks goal, though, so we have hope things will keep looking up. Heres to no more hateful content warnings for pointing out the Y chromosome or saying the 2020 election wasnt perfect.

To that end, Ive compiled 100 facts that censorious Democrats might not like but Musk-owned Twitter should let people tweet.

1. Boys and girls are different.

2. Ivermectin works.

3. Cloth masks arent effective.

4. Lockdowns caused more harm than good.

5. Hunter Bidens laptop is real.

6. Black Lives Matter is a grift.

7. Joe Biden was involved in Hunters sketchy foreign business.

8. Rachel Levine is a man.

9. The 2020 election was rigged.

10. People who teach gender identity to kindergarteners are groomers.

11. Preborn children are living humans.

12. Gender affirmation is child abuse.

13. AR-15s arent assault weapons.

14. Shotguns kick harder than semi-automatic rifles.

15. Gas prices are Joe Bidens fault.

16. Inflation isnt Vladimir Putins fault.

17. Covid vaccines dont keep you from getting the WuFlu.

18. Covid vaccines dont keep you from spreading the WuFlu.

19. Covid vaccines were a success of the Trump administration.

20. Peaceful protests arent fiery.

21. Donald Trump didnt collude with Russia.

22. Barack Obama spied on the Trump campaign.

23. Covid probably escaped from a lab.

24. Communist China is committing genocide.

25. Roe v. Wade is bad case law.

26. College is overrated.

27. Government-funded means taxpayer-funded.

28. The world is not ending from climate change in the next decade.

29. Clean energy isnt clean.

30. Fauci lied. People died.

31. Murdering babies in utero isnt eradicating Down syndrome.

32. Latinx is not a real word.

33. The 1619 Project is historically inaccurate.

34. Drag Queen Story Hour is not a blessing of liberty.

35. Stacey Abrams has never been governor of Georgia.

36. Donald Trump never incited an insurrection.

37. Mainstream doesnt define the corporate press.

38. Children have a right to a mother and a father.

39. Jack Phillips did nothing wrong.

40. Trans policies are hurting women.

41. Critical race theory is ideological poison.

42. Public schools are corrupted by critical race theory.

43. Conservative parents arent domestic terrorists.

44. Transition regret is real.

45. Paper straws suck.

46. Minimum wage isnt supposed to be a living wage.

47. Obesity shouldnt be celebrated.

48. The United States should not go to war with Russia.

49. Joe Biden is a plagiarist.

50. Declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be declaring war on Russia.

51. Abortion isnt health care.

52. Wrong-sex hormones arent health care.

53. Covid is no longer an emergency.

54. Jobs recovered after government-induced lockdowns arent new jobs.

55. Mask mandates didnt work.

56. Vaccine mandates didnt work.

57. Parents should have a say in what their children learn in taxpayer-funded schools.

58. Brett Kavanaugh isnt a gang rapist.

59. You can define woman without being a biologist.

60. Taylor Lorenz is a doxxer.

61. Satire isnt hate speech.

62. Common Core is a failure.

63. The deep state is real.

64. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor was a lie.

65. Strong borders matter.

66. The Jan. 6 Committee is a sham.

67. The first impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

68. The second impeachment of Donald Trump was a sham.

69. Censorship by non-state actors is still censorship.

70. Pornographic books are not appropriate for elementary schoolers.

71. Hatred for white people based on their skin color is racism.

72. Children dont need smartphones.

73. Masculinity isnt toxic.

74. Feminism lied to women.

75. Student loan forgiveness advantages high-earning doctors and lawyers most.

76. Disney hates your values.

77. Joe Biden wrecked the economy.

78. Joe Bidens withdrawal from Afghanistan was deadly.

79. Careers dont bring women more happiness than motherhood.

80. Ketanji Brown Jackson went soft on child porn offenders.

81. Hunter Biden lied on a federal background check form to illegally buy a gun.

82. Trans bathroom policies put girls in danger.

83. Jan. 6 rioters didnt kill anyone.

84. Black Lives Matter rioters killed dozens of people.

85. Floridas Parental Right in Education Law still allows people to say gay.

86. Andrew Cuomos nursing home policies killed people.

87. Silence isnt violence.

88. Speech isnt violence.

89. Border Patrol agents didnt whip migrants.

90. Joe Biden hasnt apologized for lying that they did.

91. Lia Thomas is a man.

92. Rochelle Walensky colluded with teachers unions to keep schools closed.

93. Children have never been at significant risk of death from Covid-19.

94. This inflation isnt transitory.

95. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee funded the Steele dossier.

96. The Steele dossier was bogus.

97. Rep. Eric Swalwell hasnt denied sleeping with a Chinese spy.

Read more from the original source:

100 Facts Elon Musk-Owned Twitter Should Now Allow People To Say Without Getting Banned - The Federalist

In its latest effort to implicate former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the violence on Capitol Hill last year, the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 revealed Meadows had been warned about the potential for unrest preceding the riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been warned too, and refused multiple requests to prepare.

Meadows, according to former advisor Cassidy Hutchinson, who was subpoenaed by the committee, was cautioned about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6 surrounding the presidents protests.

I know that there were concerns brought forward to Mr. Meadows, Hutchinson told panel investigators in March. I know that people had brought information forward to him that had indicated that there could be violence on the 6th. But, again, Im not sure if he what he did with that information.

The testimony was revealed in a 248-page court filing from the probes attorneys in an ongoing legal drama between Meadows and the Select Committee over White House records.

The committees revelation made headline news across legacy outlets, amplifying the probes discovery as an indictment against a primary target of the regimes investigation in routine fashion.

Meadows Was Warned Jan. 6 Could Turn Violent, House Panel Says, read The New York Times.

Meadows was warned Jan. 6 could turn violent, former White House official says, headlined another article in NBC.

Meadows was warned of violence before Jan. 6, new court filings show, The Washington Post wrote in front-page news as a most read column Saturday morning.

If the revelation that Meadows was told violence might occur surrounding the protest of a politically sensitive subject is a major scandal, however, perhaps the committee should probe why Pelosi denied requests to deploy the National Guard up to six times.

In December, the initial trove of Meadows documents published by the Select Committee revealed Meadows pledged the National Guard would be ready to maintain order. The records illustrate a White House chief of staff who was far from dismissive of violent threats as depicted by the committee investigating Jan. 6.

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect pro Trump people and that many more would be available on standby, the Select Committee wrote. Panel members framed the material as an unearthed scandal but it now undermines its latest made-up scandal four months later.

In fact, nearly everyone in Washington knew about the potential for political unrest to break out at the climax of a violent election cycle. Even the Capitol Hill parking attendants warned about the hazard.

Due to the possibility of large-scale public protests, access to the Capitol Plaza will be restricted, read an email from the House Parking Team on the eve of the riot obtained by The Federalist. For the safety and security of personnel on the House campus, we ask that staff strongly consider parking in the Cannon and Longworth House Underground Garages.

That Meadows, a former four-term member of Congress, would be totally oblivious to the idea that mass protests might deteriorate into an uproar is negligent thinking.

Whereas Meadows was a White House bureaucrat involved in the planning of a peaceful demonstration on the Ellipse, Pelosi possessed the authority to adequately prepare for what was to come on Capitol Hill, and she deliberately refused.

According to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, the agency requested Speaker Pelosi approve the deployment of the National Guard six times ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. Sund said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who works under Pelosi, thought the deployment was bad optics two days prior. Pelosi and House Democrats had previously condemned the use of federal troops in Washington to quell the violent mobs terrorizing the city.

The speakers deputies on the Select Committee investigating the attack, however, have publicly stated no interest in probing Pelosis own culpability.

If you look at the charge that we have in the resolution, it says the facts and circumstances around January 6. I dont see the speaker being part and parcel to that, Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told CNN last year.

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.

See the original post here:

Before J6, Meadows Put Troops On Standby While Pelosi Refused Them - The Federalist

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committees claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durhams office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsels pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmanns former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsels office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmanns efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNCs motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsels office to key facts about the FECs recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to outside research firms such as Fusion GPS to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing opposition research into Donald Trump.

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that the research was not for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice, but to further the political and campaign-related goals of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges.

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsels office, the FEC had found probable cause to believe the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum will not be made public for another week, the letter explained.

Foundation counsel Dan Backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsels office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durhams team further details on the FECs investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Fridays letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNCs commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to not further contest the Commissions finding of probable cause to believe that the political organizations had falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services. In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, the letter stressed.

The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating, the foundations letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement material in ruling on any privilege claims.

Whether the special counsel will follow the foundations suggestion and obtain the memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel before the judge in the Sussmann case rules on the Clinton campaign and the DNCs assertions of attorney-client privilege is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that the special counsels office intends to ensure the jury knows that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC believe communications relevant to Sussmanns efforts to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax are protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Friday we also learned just how the special counsel hopes to do thatby having representatives of both the Clinton campaign and DNC testify at trial. That revelation appeared in a response brief Sussmanns attorneys filed last week, wherein the defense team noted that they had just learned that the special counsel had issued trial subpoenas to both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. According to Sussmanns legal team, the special counsel requested the testimony of witnesses from those political organizations regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.

Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FECs conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Fridays letter to the special counsels office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNCs settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they wont contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.

That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Excerpt from:

Letter: No, Hillary Can't Try To Hide Her Oppo From The Special Counsel - The Federalist

What are we to make of a comment Monday from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that the Biden administrations goal in Ukraine is to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine?

Austin made the remark in a press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken after the pair met with Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, in what was the highest level visit by U.S. officials since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February.

One obvious conclusion we can draw from Austins comment is that the Biden administration has now committed openly to a policy of escalation in Ukraine. The White House intends to keep the war in Ukraine alive, with the stated goal of weakening Moscow by continuing to pour new and more advanced weaponry into the war-ravaged country.

Indeed, Austin and Blinken announced a new round of military aid to Ukraine, bringing the total amount of U.S. assistance to about $3.7 billion since the invasion began. After resisting pressure early in the conflict to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons systems, the Biden administration has changed course. It is now preparing to send heavy artillery, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, antiaircraft radar systems, advanced attack drones and other weapons.

Austin told members of the press that the Defense Department wont just send weapons, but will expand military training for Ukrainian service members in the region on certain weapons systems being provided.

Delivering all this aid is of course itself an escalation of U.S. involvement in the war. A Wall Street Journalreportabout the meeting in Kyiv included this detail, buried near the end of the story:Senior U.S. military officers at a facility in Poland described an accelerating logistical network for supplying weapons and materiel to Ukraine, as well as a regional effort to increase troop levels and exercises with NATO members along the alliances eastern flank.

Seven 155-mm artillery pieces, along with their tow vehicles, are being processed through the facility, adding to the 18 howitzers the U.S. has already provided to Ukraine, a senior defense official said. Six dozen U.S. howitzers are being sent to Ukraine under a new aid package, and rounds of 155-mm artillery were visible on pallets at the Polish facility.

These weapons and munitions are getting into Ukraine for the most part via railway, which is probably why Russiacarried out missile strikeson least five railway stations across central and western Ukraine early Monday, just hours after Austin and Blinken met with Zelensky.

How did Austin and Blinken get to that meeting? By railway. Politicoreportedthat Austin and Blinken traveled to and from Kyiv by train and crossed into Poland shortly before Russian missiles struck several railway lines including one in the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, near the Polish border.

If youre wondering what is the significance of this deepening U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, or how it might lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia, consider that the U.S. secretaries of defense and state might have just narrowly missed being struck by a Russian missile as they traveled to and from Kyiv by rail on Monday.

As the Biden administration escalates, the chances that something very much like that will happen are going to increase exponentially. Perhaps a crew of U.S. servicemen quietly sent into the country to train Ukrainian troops on the use of a new U.S.-provided weapons systems will get hit by a Russian missile strike. Perhaps U.S. diplomats, whom Blinken said are returning to Ukraine this week, first to Lviv and eventually to Kyiv, will be killed or injured or otherwise caught in the crossfire.

We cant know what will happen exactly, only that if the United States continues down this path sending Ukraine increasingly advanced weapons systems, training Ukrainian troops, underwriting Ukraines defense it will lead,as it has already led, to ever-increasing U.S. involvement in the war.

At some point, it wont matter that back in March President Biden said he wouldnt send U.S. troops to Ukraine. The logic of U.S. escalation is already at work, moving us toward direct engagement.

After all, the Pentagonsaid in early Marchthat a U.S.-facilitated transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine was not tenable, yet last week the United States and its allies took a step in that direction,providing Ukraine with aircraft partsit needed to get 20 grounded planes operational. Even now, Slovakia is in talks with its NATO allies aboutproviding MiG-29 warplanes to Ukraineif the United States will replace them with F-16s.

Beyond the logic of escalation, there is a strategic dead-end looming for the Biden administration. Early on in the war, Blinken articulated the hoped-for end state in Ukraine: We have to sustain this until it stops, until the war is over, Russian forces leave, the Ukrainian people regain their independence, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity. Were committed to doing that.

The best way to understand that is as a maximalist policy vis--vis Moscow: a total defeat of Moscow and a complete humiliation of the Russian armed forces. Since Blinken said that in early March, versions of it have been repeated in the corporate press and among unreconstructed foreign policy neocons.

Arecent columnby Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal is representative of this view. The time has come, he says, for the West to declare its intention to win in Ukraine. After all, Americas credibility is at stake. The moment has arrived in this war for Mr. Biden to clear something up with one presidential assertion: Were in this thing to win.

So goes the thinking among establishment types inside the Beltway. As far as they are concerned, the United States is in this thing. And if were in, then wed better win. The assumption underlying this analysis is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, faced with U.S. escalation, will back down and accept defeat. An unmitigated Ukrainian victory is, according to these people, somehow a realistic outcome of this conflict.

But history, especially theunique history of Russo-Ukrainian relations, suggests otherwise. Indeed it suggests that Moscow will never allow for the kind of Ukrainian victory that Blinken and the White House are working towards. To the extent U.S. policymakers are relying on, say, historical comparisons to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan as a guide for the creation of U.S. policy in Ukraine, then were in trouble.

Put another way,this is not a peripheral conflict for Russia. As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the fate of Ukraine is inextricably tied to Russias core strategic national interests. The chances that Putin will accept total defeat in Ukraine without escalation that involves the use of nuclear weapons, or that involves widening the war, are probably lower than most Americans are comfortable with.

To bring it back to Defense Secretary Austins remark about the U.S. wanting to see Russia weakened to the point it cannot field a military capable of invading a much smaller country, one has to ask: how does Russia, a country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, get weakened to that point? Do Austin and his generals really think that a U.S.-backed Ukraine is going to be able to do that? Or do they have something else in mind? The evidence suggests they have something else in mind, and that something else is direct U.S. and NATO involvement.

Instead of barreling toward a clash between Russia and the West, a wiser course of action for the Biden administration would be to ensure the United States doesnt get drawn into the war at all, and takes the lead in urging both sides to come to a negotiated political settlement that puts an end to the fighting.

But with each passing week, that wiser course of action becomes more remote and less possible, while a far more dangerous and increasingly inexorable course of events, for the United States and Russia and the entire world, draws ever closer.

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

Link:

Biden Is Openly Pursuing A Policy Of Escalation In Ukraine - The Federalist

Imagine an America in which a summa cum laude medical graduate interviews at countless medical schools but cannot find one that will tolerate her Christian faith, a faith-based pro-life clinic faces a financial crisis after having its federal Title X funds stripped away, and federal agencies discriminate against hospitals and clinics nationwide for refusing to kowtow to the administrations extremist stances on abortion, sexuality, and marriage.

That reality is already well on its way here, and will only get worse with the proposed elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for health professionals. President Joe Bidens HHS announced last week that the agency is in the rulemaking processof rolling back former President Donald Trumps protections for medical personnel whose faith prevents them from performing procedures like abortion.

Already, the three above examples are happening.

I was top of my class (summa cum laude) as an undergrad at UC Berkeley, had an MCAT score above the average of all the medical schools I applied to, and I had participated in many extracurriculars, reports one young woman. I think I applied to essentially all of the medical schools in my home state of California. I did not get even a single interviewexcept for the faith-based school of Loma Linda.

In a national scientific survey of faith-based health professionals that I constructed in 2019, 3 in 5 respondents agreed with the poll statement that it is common that doctors, medical students or other health-care professionals face discrimination for declining to participate in activities or provide medical procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Pro-life clinics like the example above will be at risk to lose federal Title X family planning funds thanks to the Biden administrations scheme, announced in April 2021, that would reverse a Trump administration policy and require grantees to make abortion referrals: Each project supported under this part must offer pregnant clients the opportunity to be provided information and counseling regarding pregnancy termination.

The abortion referral requirement affects pro-life clinics such as Staten Island, N.Y.s Beacon Christian Community Health Center. Beacon won an award under the Trump rule but no longer receives Title X funds to aid its low-income patients. The Biden administration is moving to effectively reserve those funds for its abortion business political supporters.

Finally, federal agencies are already working to discriminate against hospitals and clinics that dont match their ideology, eliminating conscientious objectors. Bidens HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra has signaled he will cease the prosecution of conscience law violators.

As The Federalist has documented, Bidens HHS has torn down the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, stripped the HHS Office of Civil Rights authority to enforce conscience and religious objections, dismissed a case of forced abortion participation, assured abortionists that We have your back, and rescinded conscience waivers that had allowed federal grants to faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.

The Biden administration now is churning out rules that aggressively enforce its ideology on abortion; religious exemptions; insurance coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients; sterilization; allowing men in womens sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms; compelled speech; and Title IX sexual harassment due process protections. These ideologically driven restrictions could slam the door on thousands of pro-life hospitals and clinics as well as highly effective faith-based social programs for adoption and foster care, food and clothing distribution, mental health service, ex-offender programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, marriage and family counseling, and teen pregnancy prevention programs.

Such animosity toward persons of faith and pro-life convictions would only accelerate and exacerbate the long-predicted physician shortage crisis, leaving poor and marginalized patients without the faith-based care on which they had depended.

At the top of the administrations list of ideological mandates, however, is abortion, an issue on which self-described good Catholic Joe Biden apparently suffers from catechetical dementia.In 2006, Biden proudly proclaimed, I do not vote for funding for abortion.

But in his 2019 presidential run, he dropped his long-standing support for the Hyde Amendment that prohibits most federal funding for abortion. His administrations blitzkrieg of rules is now embedding abortion ideology even further in government policy while essentially eliminating funding for abortion opponents.

The administrations anti-religion ideological purge threatens to create what Richard John Neuhaus warned of in 1984 a naked public square, a government devoid of religious participation, values, and moral influence. In particular, excluding people of faith from health care bodes severe consequences.

Both our 2019 national survey of faith-based health professionals and another in 2009 revealed that 91 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience. They cannot separate their faith-motivated mission to care for the poor from their faith commitment to honor the sanctity of human life.

Left unchecked, the Biden administration may well succeed in driving the pro-life and faith communities out of partnerships with the federal government. The victims of the resulting naked public square will be millions of patients, the poor, and other needy and suffering individuals served by faith-based health and social services programs.

Jonathan Imbody is a writer and consultant with FaithSteps.net and has several decades of experience in federal healthcare and religious freedom public policy.

Original post:

Biden Is Purging From Health Care Anyone Who Thinks Babies Are People And Men Aren't Women - The Federalist

The Labor Departments March inflation numbers released this month skyrocketed past Februarys, hitting a 12-month increase of 8.5 percent and the steepest annual increase since 1981. Thats no small figure, but most Americans know the inflation they encounter at the grocery store checkout, the gas pump, the car lot, and the leasing office is far higher than that.

Just look at basic items like groceries and gas, and youll see how much higher those necessities are climbing than the generic inflation figures slapped across headlines.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in the average U.S. city, ground beef is up 14.9 percent since last March, boneless stew beef is up 24.3 percent, bacon is up 23.1 percent, boneless chicken breasts are up 17.6 percent, eggs are up 25.9 percent, milk is up 17 percent, frozen orange juice concentrate is up 18 percent, and ground coffee is up 15.8 percent. Meanwhile, fuel oil has jumped a whopping 71.5 percent, and utility gas is up 23.3 percent.

Many of these urban numbers dont even capture how steeply prices have risen for middle America, however. In the Midwest, ground beef has risen 24.5 percent, almost 10 percentage points more than the urban average.

While BLS breaks down beef products into ground beef, steaks, stew beef, etc., its all other uncooked beef category shows a drastic 38.2 percent jump in the Midwest, compared to a still-high rise of 25.4 percent in cities. The inflation of the price of bacon in the Midwest is 3 percentage points higher than in cities, while for boneless ham its more than 15 percentage points higher. The price of boneless chicken breasts in the Midwest jumped by31.2 percent, compared to 17.6 in U.S. cities.

In all likelihood, these prices arent done climbing. Investment firm Evercore ISI projected the price of chicken breasts to jump at a year-over-year rate of up to 70 percent in the first half of 2022, with beef and pork prices rising 20 percent.

So when you hear 8 percent inflation bandied about but feel certain your costs are rising at a far higher rate, youre not crazy youre just feeling the very real consequences of inflationary policies that Washington types are happy to brush off.

Dont listen to CNN journo-splaining to you Why inflation can actually be good for everyday Americans and bad for rich people. As Axios reported from Labor Department statistics, Shoppers with incomes of less than $40,000 arent buying as much fresh meat and seafood. Theyre turning to frozen meat or canned stuff instead and buying more store brands. Its these lower-income shoppers who are most at-risk as food prices rise.

Its also not just gas and groceries that are rising higher and faster than the nationally reported inflation numbers. According to a Redfinanalysis, February saw a 15 percent year-over-year increase in asking rent, and a 31 percent jump in the national homebuyers median monthly mortgage rate. Americans in the market to buy used vehicles have also seen a far higher price spike than the overall inflation rate in the past year, at a whopping41.2 percent as reported in March.

At the same time, wages cant keep pace with rising expenses, meaning Bidenflation is skimming off the top of Americans paychecks to the tune of around $4,200 in annual depreciation of the average salarys worth.

These are unsustainable numbers for most Americans, especially those who arent making as much as the politicians pushing bloated, multi-trillion-dollar spending plans to flood the economy with cash thats bleeding value. Legacy media outlets might try to downplay rising inflation as something that could be solved by eating lentils and letting the family pet die, but Americans know every time they buy groceries, fill the gas tank, or pay the utility bill how hard high-spending inflationary policies are making their lives.

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.

View post:

The Inflation Draining Your Wallet Is A Whole Lot Steeper Than 8 Percent - The Federalist

More than a dozen GOP governors wrote to President Joe Biden Tuesday signaling opposition to his executive order requiring government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on taxpayer-funded construction contracts exceeding $35 million, according to a newly obtained letter.

Biden signed Executive Order 14063 in February at a Maryland union hall. PLAs are collective bargaining agreements that are project-specific and give union contractors public works contracts. Led by Govs. Bill Lee of Tennessee and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, the group of governors say the president is essentially giving unions a monopoly on major federal government projects.

When mandated by government agencies, PLAs can interfere with existing union collective bargaining agreements and needlessly discourage competition from quality nonunion contractors and their employees who comprise 87.4% of the private U.S. construction industry workforce according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, they write, adding:

Reducing competition from some of the best union and nonunion construction firms and workers will exacerbate the construction industrys skilled labor shortage, delay projects, and increase construction costs by estimates of 12% to 20% per project, which will result in fewer infrastructure improvements, less construction industry job creation, and higher taxes.

PLAs make contractors change out existing employees with union hiring hall workers. Since 2009, more than half of the federal governments construction projects have been built by nonunion contractors, The Wall Street Journal reported, while the estimated 12 to 20 percent construction cost increase may result in fewer improvements to utility, affordable housing, roads, and bridges.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The construction industry is grappling with a skilled labor shortage of 430,000 workers, the group Associated Builders and Contracts determined in a 2021 report. The governors think Bidens order will exacerbate this, as well as delay projects and result in less infrastructure.

In short, the aforementioned policies will undermine taxpayer investment in billions of dollars of forthcoming public works projects financed by the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 and additional bipartisan legislation passed by Congress, all of which was signed into law free from language requiring or encouraging the use of PLAs, the governors write.

Republican governors wrote to Biden in January seeking cooperation from his administration on infrastructure implementation. The governors called on federal agencies to work with states to draft regulations and guidance that allow maximum regulatory flexibility to prevent further federal overreach in order to protect economic growth.

In 2009, then-President Barack Obama signed an executive order encouraging PLAs. The order stipulated that agencies, on a case-by-case basis, when awarding a contract costing more than $25 million or more, may require a PLA when it will:

Advance the Federal Governments interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and be consistent with law.

It is the contention of the governors, roughly three months after their January letter, that the Biden administration must give states flexibility and avoid costly pro-PLA policies. A 2021 study by the Rand Corporation, a think tank that is partly funded by the U.S. government, found that a PLA mandate in Los Angeles resulted in fewer projects and spiked construction costs.

Other studies have shown similar results.

An October 2021 study authored by a former Saint Louis University professor found nonunion workers suffer around a 34 percent reduction in wages and benefits under government-enforced PLAs. A 2019 study released by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research found that the construction of New Jersey schools built under PLAs cost roughly 16 percent more than schools built free from such restrictions.

In addition to Lee and Hutchinson, the letter sent Tuesday was signed by Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Mike Parson of Missouri, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

View the full letter here.

Here is the original post:

GOP Governors Oppose Biden EO Creating Monopoly On Federal Construction Contracts - The Federalist