Category Archives: Federalist

As the country awaits the Supreme Courts decision on the Mississippi law banning abortions after babies are 15 weeks old in Dobbs v. Jackson, the fate of thousands of unborn babies lies in the hands of these justices.Sarah Eubanks knows just what horrors await those unborn children if the court doesnt recognize their right to live.

Eubanks, who now advocates for the pro-life movement, worked in the Ladies Center, an abortion facility in Mobile, Ala. After witnessing the murder of thousands of unborn children and enduring the trauma of her own abortion, Eubanks decided to spend the rest of her life telling the world about the horrifying secrets of the industry, as well as the trauma shes experienced.

During her time at the abortion center, Eubanks worked in the POC room. POC stands for Products of Conception: the pro-choice way of sugar-coating what was actually a baby morgue.

Eubanks would pick out a babys body parts from the suction machine and put the limbs back together, like a puzzle. Once she would piece the spine, skull, and arms together, she would determine whether all of the childs body was out of the mother.

When you get trained to do that, that means you really know your stuff, she explained. And that youre good and trustworthy and dependable that now youre being promoted, in a sense, and were gonna give you this honor of doing this horrific task.

While the task of putting these babies back together was deemed a badge of honor, Eubanks would go home and wash baby blood off her hands. And it wasnt just the blood of a few babies; thousands of children were massacred in these facilities.

During her time there, Eubanks says she assisted in the abortions of almost 5,000 mothers. The actual number of children aborted was more than that; the abortionist would never tell the woman whether she was pregnant with one, two, or three babies. Most women walked out assuming they had been pregnant with one child when many were carrying twins or even triplets.

To make matters worse, the abortion center would not tell the mothers if they were past 14 weeks. While the policy at the center was that abortions past 14 weeks would not be performed, their abortionists still killed fetuses far past this mark, Eubanks said. Before the procedure, a pelvic examination was performed, and the abortionist would be able to tell how far along the pregnancy was.

I do remember a few times like seeing a doctors face kind of like, you know somethings off here, but they still would go ahead and do the procedure, Eubanks said. Looking back, I do think that maybe those were the ones that were further along.

Regardless, the abortionists would follow through with the abortion and never tell the mothers how far along they really were, if they were pregnant with more than one child, or even the babys sex, she added.

While the abortion center would never tell the mothers this information, many of the workers assumed women would just carry on with their lives after their abortion. In reality, many women walked out of the office regretting their decision and were traumatized by the procedure.

Perhaps the most gutwrenching vision Eubanks recalled seeing at the abortion center was the case of a 12-year-old girl who was brought in by her grandmother. By the girls hysteria, it was clear that she did not understand what was going on.

I remember that look on her face that she just didnt understand what was going on. She didnt want to be there, Eubanks said. She started moving around and the doctor said, You need to hold her down. I did put my hands on her and said You have to settle down, you gotta be still, youre gonna hurt yourself. You have to be still. And within an instant, she pushed her feet out of the stirrups and started running down the hall with the speculum in her vagina with blood running down her legs.

The doctor said, Im not touching this,' recalled Eubanks. She was that upset. She just didnt want to be there. She was screaming. She was out of control. And even the administrators were like, Shes gotta go. Shes just got to go.

This young girl was just one of many patients who did not understand what was going on and was pressured to follow through with the abortion. Many women got cold feet after entering the building and tried to back out at the last minute but were told it was too late, Eubanks recalled.

Women were told, Were not going to give a refund. Youre already here. It is what it is, she said.

This repeated lie that there were no other options caused the deaths of many unborn children. If the abortion facility had been honest about other options, such as adoption, less blood would have been spilled. Instead, these women were lied to and just handed birth control when they left.

You dont give them options in the clinic, said Eubanks. The only options that we gave the patients were What kind of birth control pills do you want to take home? Those are the only options. We didnt ever talk about adoption and keeping the baby. We never talked about that.

By just handing out birth control and not educating these women on their options, the facility made many patients believe abortion was the only solution and that they could come back to get another abortion when they got pregnant again, she said.

[Patients were never told] that this is killing your child, that this is not the solution, Eubanks said.

Eubanks recalled a woman who came in for her 12th abortion. Every time she came in, she cried. And every time, the abortion center never bothered to educate her on how to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

I remember she was laying on the table crying because it was so painful. And I was like, how many times have you been through this? She was crying before each one. On her records, it showed that she had had 12 abortions.

The issues at stake in Dobbs are far more than political ones, Eubanks noted. This isnt political. This is heart. When your heart changes on abortion, thats when true change happens.

Eubanks had an abortion when she was 19, believing it was her only option and that it would spare her family embarrassment. But once the procedure started, she knew she had made a mistake.

The suction piece of hard plastic went in, and when, the second I felt my baby being ripped out of my womb, I knew I had made a mistake, she recalled. I felt it. And I laid on the table crying in solid tears. [People] dont talk about the sadness, the hurt.

When I came out, I was just very stoic, very solemn. I remember going to the bathroom and throwing up, and I sat on the floor next to the toilet, just crying my eyes out, she added. You cant grieve an abortion. Its not right because its your choice. You chose this.

Twelve years after her abortion, Eubanks and her husband tried to get pregnant, to no avail. Told by her doctor that they had found scar tissue in her uterus, she believes her abortion caused her infertility.

Only in recent years did Eubanks tell her family about her abortion. When she finally told her mother about her secret, that she had had an abortion in 1987, she was surprised by her mothers response.

I went over to her house because I wanted to talk to her. And I said, I just want to tell you that in 1987, I had an abortion.'

I know, said her mother. Thats when you changed.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Mississippis ban on abortion and others like it, millions of unborn children will be sacrificed to the lie that its empowering for women to abort their children. In reality, killing an unborn child brings nothing but trauma, guilt, and heartbreak. Not only can the Supreme Court save the lives of millions of unborn children, but the lives of so many women may be salvaged too.

Alasdaire Fleitas is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where she studies psychology and religious studies.

Read the original:

The Dark Truths I Learned From Both Sides Of The Abortionist's Table - The Federalist

New York Times columnist Charles Blow recently claimed to be truly shocked by a poll showing President Biden with a 33 percent approval rating. I was shocked, too how could his approval rating be that high?

Blow, of course, is surprised at Bidens unpopularity, and worried that the Democrats are stumbling into a bloodbath in the November midterms. Blow is paid to understand and explain politics and culture to his readers. That he is surprised reveals a lot about the bubble he is in. And his meandering analysis of Democrats problems illustrates how the ideology making Democrats unpopular is also preventing them from understanding why they are unpopular.

Blow initially blames Biden for being too much of a decent man sober and straightforward rather than a showman. This is a ludicrous assessment of a politician, who, until age caught up with his tongue, was one of D.C.s preeminent bloviators. Nonetheless, Blows ordinary partisan delusion is less interesting than the ideological blind spots revealed when he turns to genuine sources of Bidens unpopularity, such as the fear of crime and the pinch of inflation and that Republicans are playing heavily into culture war issues.

Although Blow does not seem to realize it, these issues combine to reinforce voters disapproval of Biden. Democratic failures on bread and butter issues such as crime and inflation are related to the culture-war radicalism that has captured their party.

Twitter, not the blue-collar union hall, is now the heart of the Democratic Party, which is controlled by the educated, urban professional-managerial class, epitomized by woke, union-busting CEOs. This faction has merged the class and culture wars championing cultural radicalism, entrenching its own economic interests, and neglecting the common good.

The Democrats are the party of wealthy diversity consultants lecturing hourly workers about white privilege and cis-heteropatriarchy while inflation eats away at wages and investment firms buy up homes in the hope of making America a nation of permanent renters. The governing priorities of those running the Democratic Party are sending government money to their clients (from teachers unions to Planned Parenthood) and waging culture war.

And they are fanatical culture warriors. Consider Blows complaint that the GOP is challenging the teaching of Black history and the history of white supremacy in schools, as well as restricting discussions of L.G.B.T. issues and campaigning against trans women and girls competing in sports with other women and girls. He adds that Republicans are using white parental fear, particularly the fears of white moms.

This litany of whines highlights the bubble Blow and his audience at The New York Times are in. Ordinary Americans know the difference between teaching history and teaching poisonous ideology derived from critical race theory. Americans understand that it is unjust for males to compete in womens sports, and that it is perverse to teach young children about sex and gender ideology. They are angry when educators encourage children to transition, and outraged when they hide it from parents.

Voters have also noticed that the cultural left never stops where it says it will. We were assured that the LGBT movement was about tolerance for consenting adult relationships; now it is about transgender toddlers, child drag queens, and men in girls locker rooms. We are also now told that being anti-racist somehow means judging people based on the color of their skin. Blow and other bubbled liberals may be okay with mastectomies for confused teenage girls, but most Americans are not.

This cultural radicalism erodes Democrats ability to govern competently. Sometimes this is the result of neglecting the basic tasks of government in order to prioritize boutique cultural issues, other times it is a direct consequence of ideology, as exemplified in the crime wave resulting from woke prosecutors and defunding the police.

In either case, wokeness is an ideology for those who are cushioned from its consequences. Indeed, wokeness is primarily a phenomenon of the college-educated, and especially the well-off; it is a niche, luxury political philosophy that thrives among the privileged and in the shelter of academia.

But though it is often a political liability, there are ways it serves the interests of its adherents. In particular, woke ideology legitimates the rule of the woke over the non-woke, and justifies economic exploitation and socio-political repression.

Wokeness claims to reveal the systems of unjust oppression that permeate society; it focuses on race, sex, and gender, and relegates economic class to a second-tier concern. This allows many of the privileged and powerful to claim to be righteous allies of the oppressed without having to sacrifice economic or social power or position. Indeed, many can claim to be oppressed themselves. This is why wokeness tends to focus on BIPoC and LGBT representation in boardrooms and Ivy League campuses, rather than helping the working class.

Thus, it is to be expected that woke discourse often suggests that the working class (especially working-class whites) have it coming for their sins of racism, sexism, transphobia, and so on the wicked deserve punishment, not sympathy. This is why pundits such as Blow are so quick to accuse dissenters of racism and bigotry. And it is why the woke left supports oligarchic power in pursuit of its aims, and eagerly uses economic, technological, and cultural power to suppress dissent.

This is why professors are having to submit woke loyalty oaths in the form of diversity statements, and why mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training has become the norm in the corporate world. This is why the left is eager to use social media censorship to suppress misinformation which in many cases is truth that is inconvenient to the regime (e.g., the Hunter Biden laptop story).

It is also why the left cannot understand its own failures. They have isolated themselves in a bubble that has drifted so far from reality and the concerns of normal voters that even electoral disaster may not bring them back to Earth. Cocooned in privilege and ideology, they think Biden is doing just fine. But most Americans have had enough of a government that is more committed to transitioning children than to controlling crime and inflation.

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

Continued here:

How Democrats' Culture War Is Destroying Their Ability To Govern - The Federalist

If youve heard anything about the ongoing defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, you can tell their relationship was chaotic and both parties contributed to the dysfunction. Allegations have flown from both sides, but in one recording Heard appears to admit to physically hitting her ex-husband, then suggesting he should quit being a baby and absorb the abuse.

I didnt punch you. I was hitting you; it was not punching you. You didnt get punched, you got hit, she said in a recording played in court. But youre fine, I did not hurt you. You are such a baby, grow the f-ck up, Johnny.

Johnny Depp expressing his displeasure with being hit made him a baby in Heards eyes a phrase used as an overt attack on his manhood. This is often a gaslighting tactic used by abusers to legitimize their destructive behavior. When angry, abusive women may use men as their punching bags on whom they can unleash all their frustration and arent supposed to complain afterward.

Men amongst each other understand the real implications of violence, which is why we understand how important it is to be selective about engaging in it. We are raised to understand that while our physical strength means we carry the big stick, we must lean on speaking softly as a method of conflict resolution with other men.

However, how we engage with women is to always speak softly and pretend to have no stick. On average, men are taller and stronger than women. Because of our biological advantages, weve placed a higher level of responsibility (and consequences) on men to remain stoic at all costs and restrain themselves when interacting with women in moments of frustration.

Men have grown up hearing the phrase There is never a reason to hit a woman, and many of us would go as far as protecting a woman we dont know from a man who has chosen to break this code of conduct. While it is socially unacceptable for a man to physically harm a woman, what about the inverse?

We all understand that an out-of-control man is a dangerous man because of his stature and his ability to overpower his female counterpart. But an out-of-control woman is just as dangerous to a man who has been bred to be tame no matter the circumstance.

Our physical stature gives the impression that we can easily withstand the impact of a womans beating but, despite our size, we still feel pain and we still bear the emotional toll. Even after a man heals from his scratches and bruises, he is still mentally affected by the lack of respect another human being displayed for his welfare. A once strong, proud man is now cowering in fear by the very person he was trained to protect.

We have a zero-tolerance policy for men striking women, meaning no matter how heinous or reprehensible the womans behavior was prior to being assaulted, the assault supersedes it. Yet female-to-male violence in our society treats men as physical specimens designed to withstand force instead of also being emotional creatures who deserve care and respect.

That double standard helps explain why we are still battling over how responsible Depp is for Heards apparent abuse, or for the emotional state which led her to it. We are socially still struggling with how to treat women as equals, not in just the positive aspects of our society but even in the negatives.

Weve succumbed to the women are inherently oppressed narrative, to the point of possibly defending abusers. A woman like Heard was long granted legitimacy as a voice for survivors, while Depp struggled to get people to see what he appears to have been drowning in.

Adam B. Coleman is the author of "Black Victim To Black Victor" and founder of Wrong Speak Publishing.

Follow this link:

The Depp-Heard Trial Reminds Us That Toxic Femininity Is Real And Horrifying - The Federalist

After years of pretending to report on the nations largest and wealthiest abortion provider, former CBS reporter Kate Smith is now going to work for it. On Monday, Smith proudly announced her new position as the senior director of news content at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

During her time at CBS, Smith described her beat as covering abortion access, an obvious giveaway of her pro-abortion stance while posing as an objective reporter. Smiths coverage of abortion access primarily focused on running puff pieces for Planned Parenthood, including softball interviews with their executives, publicizing their PR campaigns, glamorous tours of their new, state-of-the-art abortion facilities, and of course their legal battles against pro-life legislation.

Her reporting, such as her 2019 coverage of Planned Parenthoods lawsuit against Missouris heartbeat bill, often failed to include interviews of a single pro-life lawmaker or individual. Conversely, she often omitted inconvenient facts about abortion providers and gave a megaphone to pro-abortion groups like NARAL to spin their propaganda.

Last summer, Smith announced she was leaving CBS. Now, free of her objective facade, she could finally share her own opinions on reproductive rights, she tweeted, as if she had previously held those opinions close to her chest.

All this to say, Planned Parenthoods hiring of Smith is unsurprising. Its certainly a bad look for her CBS colleagues and corporate journalists everywhere, especially so-called media reporters who didnt make a peep about the optics of Smiths announcement Monday, but not surprising.

If anything, its only surprising that Planned Parenthood would see the value in hiring someone who is much more useful carrying water for them in the allegedly unbiased corporate media, and on CBSs dime. Its safe to assume other corporate journalists will continue to work the PPFA propaganda beat, but what use does an abortion provider have for a director of news content?

Ah, well, Smith tweeted that out too. She will be leading a team to develop expert-informed news content to combat abortion stigma and health misinformation. Essentially, they are moving the propaganda production in-house.

Americans distrust in corporate media makes media coverage so utterly worthless thanks to journalists like Smith, that its more efficient for Planned Parenthood to create and curate their own abortion misinformation rather than the old way of feeding it to pro-abortion journalists. Rather than doing all the behind-the-scenes legwork to get Smith to peddle their talking points on CBS This Morning, only to have Americans tune out, its more cost-effective to just pay Smith to peddle the propaganda direct-to-consumer.

Luckily, they found the right woman for the job.

See the rest here:

Planned Parenthood Is Bringing Their Propaganda Production In-House - The Federalist

Robert Eggers latest film, The Northman, solidifies his standing as one of the most interesting young directors and writers around. His films would be unique in any era, but they truly stand out as something special in the current film landscape, even if they are disturbing.

Eggers films have a distinct aesthetic that makes for powerful filmgoing experiences. Theyre also definitely not everyones cup of tea, which gives his voice even more of an edge in this age of mass media franchise saturation.

Its useful to look at The Northman in context, in line with the directors work. Eggers debut film, The Witch (2015), is at the very least a top-five contender for greatest director premier ever. Its one of the best horror films ever made, but more importantly a fearless and disturbing look into the dark heart of humanity. The films pace is torturous, each moment bleeding dread.

But whats really unique about The Witch is that the commitment to historical detail extends to the beliefs of the time its set. Its subtitled A New England Folktale, and the focus of the entire story is on a heretical pilgrim family trying to make their way in the new world alone. They encounter a witch in the wilderness who embodies all the ideas of the time about witchcraft.

I think from Eggers perspective, this story is probably a deconstruction of Christianity as a toxic ideology and possibly a defense of feminism. After all, witches were alleged to require parts of dead children to make their flying ointments, and engaged in nonreproductive sex with Satan in the woods. The importance of infanticide to contemporary feminism and the worship of nonreproductive sex is central to everything deemed critical theory, a.k.a. leftism.

Whatever Eggerss intention may have been, however, the film he made displays the depravity of the human heart in all its naked glory. Its a boldly directed, disturbing masterpiece, which is also useful as a didactic tool about the age in which its set.

Eggers followed that film with The Lighthouse, done entirely in black and white. A bizarre and twisted tale of insanity and isolation set in a New England lighthouse at the end of the 19th century, this film displayed even more of Eggers mastery as a filmmaker even if it was a less satisfying piece of writing.

The film is visually stunning, and the performances are spectacular, but theres so little for the audience to relate to that it often feels overwhelming. But this film also takes the historical exactitude to the realm of belief. This is what brings in all the insanity of the story: the beliefs of the characters inform the reality of the narrative.

The Northman looked like it would be a massive departure from Eggerss previous works. The cast was much larger, the scale clearly epic. Its categorized as an action drama instead of horror, but this film is essentially a continuation of his previous creative vision.

While there is action and drama in the film, it still feels primarily like a horror movie. The score, in particular, accompanied by brutal onscreen violence, often makes the viewer feel as though hes being assaulted. Several scenes involve hallucinogenic states that are deeply troubling.

If it wasnt so enslaved to reproducing a genuine historical mood, this film would be the epitome of dark fantasy. There are Valkyries, sorceresses, zombies, and Odin even shows up at one point. But its all based around what the people of the time actually believed and did, and while there are surely academics who would contest various aspects (because there always are) its obvious that the film is supposed to be representing an ancient worldview accurately.

The film mostly succeeds at being a powerful tale of Viking revenge. Its basically a retelling of Hamlet, but they went directly to Shakespeares source material: the legend of Amleth. All the fundamental unadorned elements are there, to the point where someone unfamiliar with Shakespeare might think it was a terrifying remake of The Lion King.

The production and cinematography are stunning. The performances are also remarkable, especially for a film with zero humor. Eggerss films are almost unbearably grim. The only thing that offsets this is that the viewer often feels as though the people making the film were having a riotously good time. Not in the way of practical jokes on set, but because everyone understands he is doing great work. And this film is very great work.

The film is also a deeply disturbing look at what paganism meant, and ultimately why Christianity converted all of Scandinavian and Russia out of it. I think Eggers is probably attempting to romanticize pre-Christian Europe. Especially if youve seen The Witch it seems clear that the world of The Northman is the exact same world the witch comes from. Its a world of nudity in the woods, open sex, and violence.

Maybe Eggers is trying to criticize through faithful depiction, but his love of Conan the Barbarian tells me that he likes this world, at least a little. There are numerous visual callbacks to that film in particular.

But its also possible that Eggers is trying to do the most postmodern of things: storytelling without morality. From this perspective, there are no heroes, only protagonists. Its not clear that Amleths mother and uncle arent justified in killing his father, or that it even matters if they are. His father isnt a good man, no one in the film is particularly good.

Amleths revenge is a destiny, something he must do, not necessarily something he should do. The fact that the gods are apparently on his side isnt particularly indicative of his virtue. This is a story of pain and power and magic. Taken in that light, the violent and operatic nature of The Northman feels almost sublime. But as a Christian, it ultimately rings hollow, or even horrifying.

A world with no truth or goodness is not beautiful. At one point a character remarks on the Christians of the day as those who worship a corpse on a tree. And that is iconographically accurate. But the context makes all the difference.

The reasons behind why that corpse was on that tree, how that corpse came back to life, and how that tree eventually replaced Yggdrasil and baptized Norse mythology changing Northern Europe for the better is one of the most beautiful stories ever told.

Maybe the best scene in the film is the climactic swordfight between Amleth and his uncle. They are fighting inside a volcano called the gates of hell. The bombast from the music, the amazing cinematography, and incredible performances synthesize into a perfect moment of fever dream violence. Its amazingly executed.

But while reflecting on it later I was struck by how hollow the struggle was, and how Jesus followers are promised that the gates of hell wont defeat us. And I felt deeply grateful that the world of The Northman was eventually transformed by the love of Christ.

A.C. Gleason is a proud alumnus of Biola University and Talbot Seminary. He teaches Philosophy full time. His writing has appeared in numerous outlets including Hollywood in Toto, The Daily Wire, and The Imaginative Conservative. He co-hosts and co-produces The AK47 Podcast with fellow Talbot Alum Kyle Hendricks.

Go here to read the rest:

Director Robert Eggers Shows The Depths Of Depravity In 'The Northman' - The Federalist

Over on Substack, journalist Sophie Ross just penned the perfect headline. We Need to Talk About Tinxs Old Tweets, she titled a brief post about influencer Christina Najjar, the woman behind @itsmetinx (and Its Me, Tinx on Sirius XM).

The headline is perfect because it so concisely captures the shoddy logic that fuels cancel culture. No, we actually dont have to talk about Tinxs old tweets. We really, really dont.

Why? First, none of the tweets in question are all that offensive. They involve a 21-year-old calling a few celebrities fat and ugly 10 years ago. Even worse, some of the more recent tweets Ross included in her roundup are merely conservative, like criticizing Hillary Clinton, Silicon Valley, and the liberal echo chamber.

Najjar, according to Ross, also liked and retweeted posts in 2020 from Eric Trump, Elon Musk, Clay Travis, and Eric Weinstein, along with some tweets that directed harsh language at journalist Ken Klippenstein. I know people often blur the line between what is and what is not offensive to suit their politics at any given point in time so, please, review the posts yourself.

They basically amount to happy hour talk and mainstream conservatism.

For better or worse, tweets about celebrities she posted as a 21-year-old dont necessarily reflect one bit on Najjars character as a grown woman in 2022. If she seems like a different person now, thats probably because she changed, and she probably changed because shes a human being who grows with age.

While were on the subject, its also somewhat amusing that our media is only debating the morality of Tinxs TikTok account in light of old tweets and not, say, because TikTok is addictive and unhealthy and likely under the control of an adversarial government that obfuscated critical information in the early days of a pandemic.

Tinx, like Libs of TikTok, wields some cultural power. Influencers and anonymous accounts may seem silly, but theyre fair game for journalists when they deserve to be held accountable. This is not one of those times. (Nor was the weird occasion on which Taylor Lorenz creepily wrote about Libs of TikTok.)

If Najjar had been caught racking up followers with body positivity content while secretly or recently calling people fat or ugly, that would warrant some questions. Instead, shes being questioned for sending mean tweets at rich people as a 21-year-old leaning right.

The many corporate media outlets that amplified Rosss story zeroed in on the alleged hypocrisy of Najjar, TikToks big sister, criticizing peoples appearances. After Tinx apologized, E! News wrote, The TikTok star, who has been dubbed the older sister on the platform by fans due to her postscentered around positivity and self-love, concluded: If youve been following me for a little bit, you know they are not representative of who I am. I am very sorry. I am a work in progress.

This is the crux of the problem. Of course tweets she sent as a 21-year-old arent representative of who she is as a woman in her 30s. This entire controversy is silly precisely because its predicated on the argument that they are representative.

Its also predicated on the argument that Najjars right-leaning views are objectionable or somehow out of alignment with her affable persona. What actually seems to have happened is that a lot of center-left women discovered someone they really like holds views they dont like. That might not have been shocking in years past, but when people have been conditioned by the media to see dissent from liberal dogma as bigotry and extremism, it makes more sense that Tinxs followers feel disoriented.

Importantly, the apology Najjar posted makes no mention of her politics. If those tweets sincerely represent her views, she was right not to grovel or feign regret.

And if Najjar was more careful about vocalizing her views after getting famous, that decision wouldnt have been dishonest or even unreasonable in this unforgiving climate. She might not have wanted to alienate sensitive fans or subject herself to the kinds of unserious, damaging questions and accusations shes fielding now.

As Ross wrapped up her expose on Tinx, much of which seemed to originate on Reddit, she wrote, I do believe people grow, and are worthy of forgiveness and redemption. I promise Im not writing her off or attempting to cancel someone for things they said in their youth, or problematic political beliefs of the past. Again, people can change. I just think, alongside her loyal fans, Im simply interested in seeing her acknowledge them.

I actually think its great Ross felt compelled to clarify she didnt want to cancel Najjar. Its a sign our incentives are shifting. People dont want to be seen participating in cancel culture. But Rosss post remains a sad symptom of a deeply unhealthy society. An influencers conservative politics are not newsworthy and neither are mean tweets she posted as a 21-year-old, whether a journalist is interested in an acknowledgment or not.

This is why Rosss headline which explicitly said we need to talk about Tinxs tweets is so perfect. Plenty of major outlets followed her lead, granting the story newsworthiness in a cynical bid for clicks and a reflexive need to produce formulaic apology porn.

The latter is most concerning. Weve become so accustomed to this rhythm of habitual struggle sessions that we hardly even pause to consider whether something is actually to borrow a phrase needed. Is it newsworthy? Is it fair? Is it doing your readers a service? Or are we just going through the motions?

In this case, the answer seems clear.

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.

Read more:

The Media's Tinx Takedown Relied On Shoddy And Dishonest Excuses - The Federalist

Every parent reading this should immediately stop and go watch HBOs Transhood (2020) documentary. It will enlighten, depress, and alarm you all at once, and its the best way to understand the crisis thats happening with so many of Americas children.

The film follows four families in Kansas City, Missouri, all of which include a child who identifies as transgender. It takes place over five years. Two of the children, 12-year-old Jay (a girl who identifies as a boy) and 15-year-old Leena (the opposite), have been placed on hormone pharmaceuticals by their parents in order to suppress their natural puberty.

The other two, 7-year-old Avery (a boy who identifies as a girl) and 4-year-old Phoenix (the same) are not receiving hormone drugs but they are dressed in female clothing and referred to as girls. Averys hair is dyed purple and pink. Phoenixs entire wardrobe is draped in rainbow.

In the most shocking scene, Leena, who wants his penis to more closely resemble a vagina (a procedure that literally involves splitting the phallus longways in half), visits a surgeon, Dr. Marci Bowers, who tells him, The thing is, a penis is basically the same thing as a clitoris. Everything a girl has, a boy has and everything a boy has, a girl has.

Bowers is a man who identifies as a woman. And he should immediately have his medical license revoked for lying to a child, encouraging him to permanently mutilate his sex organs.

But, if you can believe it, there are plenty of other confounding moments.

Avery, the 7-year-old, is very obviously used by his weird mother as a prop for her political activism. Avery is prostituted out on the cover of National Geographic, like an animal.

Hes also dragged to Washington, D.C., for a protest and to sign copies of an illustrated book, under his name, about being a transgender child. Avery hates all of it, and without a flicker of irony, his mother tells him, The problem is you do approve things and then you change your mind.

Avery: I just dont want to even have a book. Ive done too much in this world to ruin my life enough and now everyone in this world is going to know if I sell my book, its going to get on the news along with me for, like, the 50th time at this point, and its just going to make my life worse.

Averys mother: A couple years ago you wanted people to know. But now?

Avery: Yeah, I did but that was a stupid, silly mistake and now I dont.

To that end, 4-year-old Phoenix, who begins the movie by wearing dresses and referring to himself as a girl-boy, ultimately reverts back to identifying as male. This boys father says early in the documentary, I dont really feel like Phoenix ever was a boy, only to say later, Theres a lot to it where I dont know if [Phoenixs mother] Molly or I made the right decisions.

In another scene, the mother of 12-year-old Jay sobs because her insurance wont cover her sons hormone replacement shots. The doctor administering the treatment appears taken aback, because, she says, Usually if something is medically necessary, insurance will cover it.

Not a clue in sight, I guess.

To the contrary, the signs telling these parents that this is not okay are everywhere. Avery at one point says, Why do I have to grow up? I just want to stay a kid.

In another scene, 15-year-old Leena discusses a classmate, a boy, who broke up with her. When I was dating Brian, it felt like an authentication, she said. Im dating a straight man and he sees me as a woman and I was so excited because, like, thats all I wanted. She said that Brian eventually told her that he was using me as a cover up because he was unsure of his identity in the sexual world.

Its a rude awakening to this young person affirmed by his parents and medical providers that hes not the sex he was born as that straight boys are highly unlikely to view other biological males as female.

In another, a woman who identifies as a man is seen cutting the hair of teenage Jay, while explaining, Ive had a complete, total hysterectomy.

Any sane person would feel compassion for both the children and for the confused parents. But only a stupid or sick person would believe that the best way to treat a gender-dysphoric child is to affirm his or her mental state with irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries, before the child is even old enough to sign a consent form.

Its worth repeating that these arent random people I found on Tik Tok. Theyre children featured in a documentary on HBO. Thats how big this problem has become.

More here:

'Transhood' Shows Why Kids Are Incapable Of Making Medical Decisions - The Federalist

Many media observers hate Axios for being a shallow, horse-race obsessed bastion of the bothsiderism normalizing the radical assault on constitutional order and amping up the all politicians are the same cynicism greasing the wheels of the Republics collapse through supercharged low turnout apathy. Its devotion to bold-faced type headings and conclusory sound byte analysis at once is ironically difficult to read and so childish that USA Today throws side eye.

Which is all fair, but its also so clumsily bad at this effort that its always good for at least a couple laughs.

Yesterday, the outlet waded into legal waters discussing Trump judges auditioning for future Supreme Court perches. But it couldnt just print this ground-breaking observation that readers of this website understood years ago because it had to throw in something for balance. And this was a doozy.

After detailing Trumps impact on the judiciary and walking through Judge James Ho wading into the lesser Black women discussion and Lawrence VanDyke denigrating his colleagues (though, weirdly, not the opinions where he compared the rest of the Ninth Circuit to criminals or suggested they were possessed), readers are treated to this visual (hat tip to Professor Steve Vladeck who flagged this on Twitter because Im certainly not reading Axios):

There are culture jammers whose heads spun at that juxtaposition. Weve got judges jumping in to back the idea that Black women arent worthy of the Supreme Court, grandstanding in opinions to bash their colleagues, and turning opinions over to gratuitous anti-Trans hate takes, but Ketanji Brown Jackson said Don McGahn has to comply with his subpoena with a quote that cites The Federalist Papers and de Tocqueville.

Totally responsible media coverage.

Trump judges audition for Supreme Court [Axios]

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump Judges May Openly Deploy Hate Speech, But Ketanji Brown Jackson Cited The Federalist Papers. So WHO CAN CAST STONES? - Above the Law

Your freedom-loving labor lawyer is back with more tips on how to beat inflation. You may not be ready to butcher backyard chickens, but you can still push the needle toward more self-sufficiency by making your own sourdough breads.

Why bother baking with sourdough? Its dirt cheap. You know exactly what your family is eating no high fructose corn syrup, excessive sodium, or chemical preservatives. You can easily stockpile flour, in the freezer or 5-gallon buckets (remember two years ago when the supermarkets ran out of bread?) Plus, your house will smell amazing. Nothing beats the aroma of fresh-baked bread.

You may think you dont have time for sourdough. This all depends on your goals. I have a friend who spends two days laminating layers of buttery flour to make fancy French puff pastry. I have other friends who bake beautiful artisan loaves to sell at the farmers market.

While I appreciate artistic baking, self-sufficient baking what I call minimalist sourdough flexes to fit the busy lifestyle. Follow these simple steps and you, too, can find time for home-baked bread.

If you dont have sourdough starter, one of your friends probably has some to share. Otherwise, you can order a starter online, or make your own in about a week.

Sourdough starter is a live mixture of yeast and bacteria. It looks like bubbly pancake batter and smells like beer. I house my starter in a tall mason jar. The starter needs to breathe, so I cover the jar with a paper towel, secured by the metal jar ring. (You can use cheesecloth and a rubber band also).

Because sourdough is alive, you have to feed it. Fortunately, this is not burdensome. Once a day, just add a heaping spoonful of flour, and an equal amount of water, and stir. If you are using your starter often, feed it more. If you want to give your starter a rest, put it in the fridge for a week. At the end of the week, take it out and feed it for a day or so before using it (or just put it back in the fridge).

Your starter may start to dry out, especially in the fridge. No worries! Just remove the dry crusty part, and feed it normally. Your starter may collect liquid at the top, especially if you skip a day or two of feeding. Again, no worries, just feed it normally. Starters are very forgiving. (However, if your starter develops off colors or smells, you may want to start over with a fresh starter).

For minimalist sourdough baking, you will need a heavy Dutch oven with lid, either cast iron or ceramic. Sourdough does not bake well in traditional loaf pans. This is because the dough is wetter than traditional bread dough, and because the lengthy rising time changes the composition of the starches. (For this reason sourdough has a lower glycemic index, good for those who are watching carbs.)

Other tools include a mixing bowl, spatula, liquid measuring cup, dry measuring cup, and plastic grocery bag.

Here is my recipe for a medium-sized loaf. You can scale up or down depending on your familys needs. The ingredients are flour, water, starter, a little bit of salt, and a little bit of oil.

A note on rising: Unlike other recipes, minimalist sourdough is flexible on rise time. The dough will rise faster where it is warmer, slower where it is cooler.

The dough has risen enough when it is puffy and bubbly all over, but you can leave it longer if you need to. Just dont let it dry out thats what the plastic bag is for. You can speed things up using the proof setting on your oven, or the low yogurt setting on your InstantPot. (I have been able to reduce rise time to 4 hours that way). But your kitchen counter works just fine.

Once the dough has risen, take your Dutch oven and its lid and put those in the oven. Preheat to 450 or 500. After the preheat, carefully remove the Dutch oven and take off the lid. You dont need to grease the Dutch oven if it is hot, the dough will not stick during baking.

Loosen the dough from the mixing bowl with the spatula. Then use the spatula to scrape the dough into the hot Sutch oven. Try to get it all in one big plop (but if not, just keep scraping out the bowl and mounding the dough up). Note that, if you use a large Dutch oven, the bread will be free-form. If you use a smaller Dutch oven or loaf baker, the bread will take the shape of the baking container.

Put the lid back on and place the whole thing in the oven. Set a timer for 40 minutes. After about 20 minutes, the lid has done its job, so you can remove it. This also allows you to monitor the color. Once the bread is light yellow-brown on top (about 40-45 minutes), you can take it out of the oven. Minimalist sourdough, due to its long rise time, is generally lighter in color than other recipes.

Carefully turn the bread out of the dutch oven and let it rest. The bread will smell really good and you will want to eat it right away. Resist! If you let it cool, the slices will come out nicer and you will also avoid problems with a gummy, undercooked interior. Make sure to use a bread knife. And lots of butter.

Minimalist bread is easy to personalize. You can enrich the bread by adding egg, butter, or milk. I would start with no more than cup of these ingredients, because they weigh down the rise. You can also add a spoon or two of sugar or honey.

Mix-ins include grated cheese, chopped jalapenos, or chopped green onions. As a sweet alternative, you can add raisins, craisins, or other dried fruit or nuts. I have made a Thanksgiving version with cup of canned pumpkin and a cup of craisins. You can also add cup of oatmeal or cornmeal for a more rustic loaf.

Minimalist sourdough will not be as light and fluffy as store-bought bread. Adjust your expectations, and cut the slices as thin as possible if you are making sandwiches, so the filling is not overwhelmed.

In addition, minimalist sourdough does not last as long as store-bought bread, because it doesnt have all of the chemicals and preservatives. I try to make the amount that my family can eat in 2-3 days. I have found that adding cup of cooked starch (for example, leftover cooked oatmeal or mashed potato) helps keep the bread fresh longer. You can also use stale bread for toast, French toast, or croutons.

Minimalist sourdough is not just for bread. You can make inexpensive and delicious tortillas and crackers with your starter.

For crackers, mix cup starter, cup flour, and 2 tablespoons oil. Season as desired. Roll thin on parchment paper, score with a pizza wheel, and bake at 350 degrees for 20-25 minutes.

For tortillas, mix cup starter, 1 cup flour, 2 tablespoons oil, and 2 tablespoons water. Divide into 4-6 balls. Press each ball with a tortilla press lined with plastic wrap. Dry-fry the tortillas in a hot cast iron pan, about 1 minute per side or until they develop light brown blisters.

Its not hard to reduce your dependence on highly processed, expensive baked goods. Minimalist sourdough is one of my favorite ways to fight inflation and feed real, healthy foods to my family. Resistance starts in your own kitchen.

Laura practices employment law and teaches political science at her local university. The opinions stated in this article are her own. You can read more of her work at stirfrylaura.wordpress.com.

Originally posted here:

A Quick-Start Guide To Making Your Own Sourdough Bread Any Day Of The Week - The Federalist

America's craft wine brand, The Federalist Wines, has announced the return of the brand's Cabinet of Summer campaign, a contest offering fans a $10,000 reward to create an epic summer itinerary. Building off the success of the 2021 Cabinet of Summer campaign, The Federalist is opening two new positions consumers can apply for: Secretary of the Backyard and Secretary of the Frontier. Selected winners will each receive their prize to make history, be challenged to use this prize to master their chosen craft, and officially become a part of the Federalist family.

Consumers have from Tuesday, April 20th to Wednesday, June 22nd to enter, and selected winners will have the opportunity to shape their summers however they'd like - on a local and/or national scale. Beginning today, fans can apply for the following two positions:

-Secretary of The Backyard: This person loves spending the warm summer months in the comfort of their own home or throwing the biggest block party to date. Whether they're grilling, playing sports in the yard, or looking to revamp their backyard space to host their family and friends all summer - The Federalist has got them covered!

-Secretary of The Frontier: This individual is all about new adventures and spends most of their time soaking up the sunshine outdoors. This summer, they'll be able to enjoy their favorite Federalist wine as they explore everywhere from the countryside to the beach or to the mountains.

"We're thrilled to reinstate the Cabinet of Summer and to offer more consumers the chance to have their best summer yet. We understand that life has been on pause for a few years, which is why we are excited to offer additional personalized opportunities for winners to live out their dreams," said Tony Terlato Jr., Vice President at Terlato Wines. "The Federalist Wines hopes this summer will be the best one yet, filled with good people, good memories, and plenty of good wine."

To apply, contestants can visit federalistwines.com/cabinetofsummer and share how they plan to make history if chosen as a Secretary of Summer. To be considered, all applicants must propose how they would make the most of their prize, including an example of their epic summer itinerary, as well as a link to a photo or video on their Instagram page that illustrates their content creation skills. To be eligible, fans must reside in The U.S. and be 25 years of age or older.

The judging period will commence following the Summer Solstice on Wednesday, June 22, and winners will be announced on Thursday, June 30 on The Federalist Instagram page.

Please visit federalistwines.com/cabinetofsummer for official Cabinet of Summer rules and regulations. To learn more about The Federalist, visit http://www.federalistwines.com and @federalistwines.

ABOUT TERLATO WINE GROUP: Owned and operated by the Terlato family for four generations, Terlato Wine Group is comprised of several businesses specializing in the marketing and production of exceptional wines & spirits. Their global portfolio includes more than 85 fine wine and artisanal spirit brands from world-class producers in more than a dozen countries and is the leading fine wine & spirits marketer in the U.S. For more information, please visit http://www.terlatowines.com.

The Terlato portfolio of brands include: Napa Valley: Chimney Rock, EPISODE, Galaxy, Jack Nicklaus Wines, Maxville, Rutherford Hill, Tangley Oaks, Terlato Vineyards; Sonoma County: Dueling Pistols, The Federalist, Hanna, Hideaway Creek, Rochioli, Steep Ridge, Terlato Vineyards; Santa Barbara County: Domaine Jean Franois, Sanford; California: Glass Mountain, Greystone Cellars, Iconoclast, Jack's House; Washington State: Klipsun Vineyards; Argentina: Tamari; Austria: Kracher; Australia: Two Hands; Canada: Peller Estates; France: Champagne Lanson, Chteau de La Tour Clos-Vougeot, Chteau de Marsannay, Chteau de Meursault, Chteau Timberlay, Domaine Aurlien Verdet, Domaine Castagnier, Domaine Confuron-Gindre, Domaine Drouhin-Laroze, Domaine Georges Roumier, Domaine Robert Groffier, Domaine Jean-Claude Ramonet, Domaine Jean-Louis Chavy, Domaine Lcheneaut, Les Sarrins, Domaine Michel Niellon, Domaine Pierre Damoy, Domaine Pierre Labet, Domaine Rebourseau, Domaine Vacheron, Domaine Vocoret, Franois Labet, Italy: Alta Mora, Ca'Marcanda (GAJA Toscana), Cecchi, Cusumano, Feudi di San Gregorio, GAJA, Giuliana Prosecco, IDDA (GAJA Mt. Etna), Il Poggione, La Casaccia di Franceschi, Nino Franco, Pieve Santa Restituta (GAJA Toscana), Riondo, Terlato Vineyards, Lunardi, Seven Daughters; Japan: Shimizu-no-mai; New Zealand: Loveblock, Wairau River; South Africa: Ernie Els, Nederburg, Rust en Vrede, Two Oceans; Artisan Spirits: Amarula Cream Liqueur, Angostura Rum, Breaker Bourbon, Bunnahabhain Islay Single Malt, Deanston Highland Single Malt Whisky, Distillatorio Nonino (Amaro, Aperitivo, and Grappa), Don Pancho Origenes Rum, Dublin Ink Irish Whiskey, Heartland Gin, Langley's No. 8 London Gin, Ledaig Single Malt Scotch, Riazul Tequila, Riazuleno Mezcal, Spring Mill Bourbon, Tiramisu Liqueur, Tobermory Single Malt Scotch; Non-alcoholic: San Benedetto Natural Mineral Water.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Federalist Wines

Read this article:

THE FEDERALIST WINES Cabinet of Summer Returns to Give Two Consumers $10,000 - Broadway World