Category Archives: Federalist

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah voted with a room filled with several bare-faced Democrats on Tuesday to keep the federal mask mandates for toddlers as young as two years old.

During a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing over the bipartisan PREVENT Pandemics Act, Romney voted no to lifting mask and jab mandates in the federal Head Start program.

The current U.S. Department of Health and Human Services standards for the Head Start program require universal masking for all individuals two years of age and older and Covid-19 jab proof for all adults involved in the program.

Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana introduced an amendment to the PREVENT Pandemics Act which was was designed to prevent HHS from implementing or enforcing their regulations regarding mask or vaccination protections in the Head Start program again.

After being subjected to federal mask mandates for almost two years, President Biden announced in his State of the Union address under the CDCs new mask guidelines, most Americans in most of the country can now be mask-free, Braun said. I completely agree with him on that. Its time to get our lives back especially based upon science and not the political science.

Brauns amendment was publicly backed by several of his GOP colleagues who noted the low-risk Covid poses to children.

Really, what were doing is just punishing children, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said. The rest of America is insulted by you telling them that their kids who are not at risk from dying from this disease, are not spreading it, that somehow were going to force these kids to keep wearing masks. Its unscientific, its inhumane and it stunting their learning.

Despite urgings from other Republicans, the amendment ultimately failed. Even though swing Republicans such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins voted to unmask the children, Romney crossed the aisle and helped doom two-year-olds to wearing face coverings even though most adults in cities, schools, and workplaces dont have to any longer.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

Read more from the original source:

Mitt Romney Just Voted To Keep Masking Two-Year-Olds - The Federalist

Tucker Carlson spouted more pro-Putin propaganda on his Fox News show this week, arguing that the collision between Ukraine and Russia was long coming and that it was provoked by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, with tacit approval from President Joe Biden.

Wait, I got that wrong. It wasnt this week, and it wasnt Tucker Carlson. It was The New York Times. My mistake!

The papers Moscow bureau chief, Anton Troianovski, made that exact case in an episode of the Times The Daily podcast on March 8. Its apparently pro-Putin to say anything other than I stand with Ukraine and Zelensky is hot, but its worth recounting what Troianovski said:that Russia was initially hopeful of a cooperative relationship with Zelensky, but after Biden was elected, the Ukrainian president felt encouraged to take a more antagonistic position on Putin.

Troianovski said it was Ukraines rejection of a Covid vaccine developed by Russia in 2020 that first indicated Zelensky was taking a pro-Western route and being skeptical, being cautious of getting too close to Russia. And thereafter, Zelensky became more outspoken about Ukraine joining NATO, a notion that has always been treated by Russia as a security threat.

Troianovski said that then the transition from President Donald Trump, who was, at best, ambivalent toward Ukraine, to Biden, who had a heightened interest, created more tension. Biden, Troianovski said, comes in, of course, with a message of much greater support for Ukraine to take a path that brings it closer to Western institutions and takes it farther away from Russia.

For Zelensky, Bidens inauguration was a green light, the reporter said. And just so theres no mistake that these are the words of a high-level New York Times correspondent and not some Russia State television message Im relaying on my own, heres what Troianovski said in full:

So what happens is just days after Biden is inaugurated, Zelensky cracks down on a business tycoon in Ukraine named Viktor Medvedchuk. And thats important because Medvedchuk is basically the closest link remaining between Ukraine and the Kremlin. Putin is the godfather of Medvedchuks daughter. Medvedchuk runs a political party that is fairly pro-Russian. He was running several TV channels that were pro-Russian, and early last year, Zelensky closes those TV channels, starts an investigation into Medvedchuk. Last May, Medvedchuk was put under house arrest under suspicion of treason. So Zelensky took all these steps that were very aggressive, and that was something that clearly annoyed Putin greatly and in retrospect was likely one of the factors that exacerbated the situation between Ukraine and Russia.

When Zelensky closed down those TV channels just after Bidens inauguration, he added insult to injury by tweeting at the time, Ukraine strongly supports freedom of speech. Not propaganda financed by the aggressor country that undermines Ukraineon its way to the [European Union] and EuroAtlantic integration.

Troianovskis colleague Michael Barbaro summarized. So Anton, youre saying the shift in the U.S. presidency from Trump to Biden represented to Zelensky that he had more Western support, Barbaro said, and that basically he had some backup if he wanted to cross Putin and so its then that he starts taking more and more aggressive steps to move away from Russia.

Exactly, Troianovski replied, and as [Zelenskys] presidency progressed, he found himself more and more on a collision course with Vladimir Putin.

Blowing air in the face of a dog doesnt mean you deserve to get your nose bitten off, but its a possibility easily avoided by keeping your mouth shut. Likewise, to acknowledge reality isnt to say Russia is justified in declaring war on Ukraine. But maybe it was a mistake for Zelensky, under the impression that Bidens America was eager to fight Ukraines battles, to flex on Putin.

And if the truth is considered pro-Russia propaganda, The New York Times has a lot to answer for.

See the article here:

If It's 'Propaganda' That Zelensky Provoked Putin, NYT Is Guilty Of Spreading It - The Federalist

Two years ago this week, the United States shut down. Churches, schools and businesses went dark. Weddings, funerals, and birthdays went silent. City streets stood empty, with an eeriness closer resembling occupied Paris than the bustling hubs theyd been just days before.

Two years later, as the last of the mask mandates for school children falter and crack, its tempting to believe our nightmare is finally over. Just as the disease is going to haunt us a long while, however, so too will the effects of how we tried to fight it.

Americans relationships with our politicians, bureaucrats, schools, media, police, and churches are fundamentally altered. Indeed, the entire Wests relationships with these major segments of society are forever remade. As we look out on the wreckage of two years of Covid policies, as well as our spiking fuel prices, rocketing inflation, a contested election, a Chinese Olympics, and a land war in Europe, its increasingly clear that, far from standing at the end of a dark era, our civilization teeters unsteadily at the very beginning of one.

Its hard to notice at first. The modern West has become so accustomed to a slow, steady decline the kind Merle Haggard sang about, and Ronald Reagan ran against that complaining about it has become clich; like the angry old man waving his cane.

More than that, its very tempting to view the past two years as separate from our other major problems. But just as Black Tuesday began an era marked by the Depression, the Dust Bowl, the New Deal, the Second World War, and a fundamental reshaping of the American life, so too will the Lockdowns mark the start of a ride we cant get off.

Even in states that have long since shrugged off the bureaucrats Covid demands, trust is broken. The people had believed in March 2020 that if they did their parts, all would soon be well. As President Calvin Coolidge famously said, The chief ideal of the American people is idealism [and] the chief business of the American people is business.

Neither Americans idealism nor our industry were rewarded, however. From March 2020 on, ours was rule not by people, but by bureaucratic diktat.

Our politicians betrayed us: flying abroad, getting haircuts, going maskless, holding parties, and dining out while also closing schools, forbidding gatherings, banning amenities, and demonizing all who resisted or even questioned their orders.

Our corporate media betrayed us: propping up liars and fools, tearing down all who spoke against their champions, and spreading fear and hatred of dissent as far and wide as their words would carry.

Our teachers betrayed us: using Covid to gain a grab bag of vacation time, control over parents, wage hikes, and other unrelated perks, all while punishing school children with years of masks, separation and the educational and developmental retardation those rules cost.

Even our much-vaunted hospital workers betrayed us: keeping dying husbands from their dying wives, grown children from their elderly parents, brothers from their sisters, and babies from their mothers all to ensure Covid safety.

As hard as it seems, much of this might be good. Not that our politicians, media, teachers, and health care are broken as the most important essay of 2021 laid bare but that Americans now recognize just how broken they all are.

Other betrayals, however, are fresher. While corruption among our most powerful religious leaders is older than the Bible itself, when our government declared religion a disposable pastime, many of our religious leaders publicly obeyed. When they bowed before the bureaucrats, a trust was broken, and America was left with one more central civil institution weakened when we needed it strengthened.

The family the political unit as old as the body politic itself also suffered greatly. While American political fights have frayed blood relations since Benjamin Franklin fought his loyalist son, the past two years have seen so marked an increase in familial destruction that few of us are left untouched.

This past Christmas, for example, people across the country told their relatives they would not be welcome if they hadnt taken the vaccine. You probably know more people this hurt than you realize; many of them, sad and embarrassed, hid it, claiming they simply couldnt make the trip this year.

Then there are the grandparents across the country who have never seen their grandchildren. In the past month alone, Ive met two different couples seeing theirs for the first time ever provided they quarantined for two weeks first, and then took a test.

The kind of fear and intolerance it takes to bar your mother from your children extends to broader society, too. Cops, hospital workers, and many others have lost their jobs over refusals to take the shot, while corporate media and its viewers loudly cheered for even harsher penalties. Confronting and reporting on businesses and people who break Covid restrictions is actively encouraged by both government and media.

Our inability to dissent from the latest Covid decree penetrates our society so deeply, liberal comedy show Saturday Night Live is now openly mocking how closely American liberals have had to monitor even their private conversations with friends.

Were now so comfortable with the concept of censoring disinformation, its extended well beyond Covid. These days, its not surprising to see the hosts of a daytime TV show for women casually call for the investigation (and possible imprisonment) of journalists and politicians who express opposition to something they support in this case, an American war in Ukraine.

This sort of thing has become actually monotonous: Censorship, investigation, and even arrest are offered daily as solutions to problems as mundane as political or medical disagreements. Has the phrase Were all in this together ever rung so hollow?

As in past eras of marked trouble, struggle, and decline, not all our problems are plainly linked; but they coalesce in their effects.

We find ourselves more divided than weve been in 150 years, and so less able to handle what comes our way. Many of our civil institutions long sick now seem terminally ill. Distrust and enmity run high, and why shouldnt they?

The result of these divisions: As we plunge into the next series of crises rapid inflation, destabilized fuel prices, the real prospect of world war in Europe we have fewer tools to handle them, less willingness to try, and more suspicion of our fellow Americans than any time in over a century.

Taking it all in, we know that were weaker than when we began 2020. Taking it all in, we know that far from returning to normalcy, were entering a period of deadly turmoil, with enemies foreign and domestic intent on taking advantage of our divisions, our distrust, and our dangerously unsteady economic situation.

Weve been challenged before, even in modern times. The Sept. 11 attacks rocked us like we hadnt seen since Pearl Harbor, yet we soldiered on. Whats finally missing, however, is that general feeling of confidence.

We no longer share an understanding that no matter the monsters wed face and we face many, here and abroad that everything would be OK; that the American Way will go on.

Overriding everything else, Walter Lord wrote in his 1955 book on the sinking of the HMS Titanic, the [disaster] also marked the end of a general feeling of confidence.

Until then men felt they had found the answer to a steady, orderly, civilized life. For 100 years the Western world had been at peace. For 100 years technology had steadily improved. For 100 years the benefits of peace and industry seemed to be filtering satisfactorily through society.

In retrospect, he continued, there may seem less grounds for confidence, but at the time most articulate people felt life was all right. The Titanic woke them up. Never again would they be quite so sure of themselves.

Within two years of the sinking, the First World War began. By its end, its hubris, violence, and indifference to personal suffering destroyed a generation and cut our civilization so deeply, the damage inflicted is still seen written on our world today.

The men who, in relative peacetime, placed supreme confidence in their steel ship against the great blue sea might only chuckle at the hubris of their successors, who had supreme confidence they could master a disease they didnt know.

We in the West, though, can be confident of one thing only: These past two years have cut us deeply, and will haunt us for many more to come.

Whats not yet written is whether we overcome. That will be up to us, and God.

Pray for America.

The rest is here:

Two Years After Lockdowns, The West's Troubles Are Just Beginning - The Federalist

Americans are watching gas prices shoot up a bit higher every single day. Thanks to President Joe Bidens green energy dreams and relinquishing of U.S. energy independence since his very first day in the Oval, ordinary people are paying the price. As The Federalist reported, its affecting everyone from stay-at-home moms to office commuters, to small and large business owners. Biden, however, doesnt seem to care.

The president and his administration are bizarrely blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for the high prices, which have been rising ever since Biden took office. Even worse, theyre suggesting the best way for you not to have to worry about the high prices at the pump is to buy an electric car.

To prevent the stress of high gas prices in the future, The best thing we can do is reduce our dependence on fossil fuels White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

Loosening environmental regulations wont lower prices, Biden tweeted the next day. But transforming our economy to run on electric vehicles, powered by clean energy, will mean that no one will have to worry about gas prices. It will mean tyrants like Putin wont be able to use fossil fuels as a weapon.

In other words, if you cant afford to pay $4 or $5 a gallon for gasoline, just buy a Tesla.

The fact is that while the president and corporate media point the finger at Putin, Biden is the one really using fossil fuels as a weapon. The Democrats in charge dont care that you cant afford to leave your house if it means they can force their green energy agenda. Pricing gas-powered drivers out of the market is a feature, not a bug, and theyve been admitting it all along.

Youll remember how after the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, when low supply and high demand caused a gasoline price hike, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stressed she was all in on achieving Biden climate goals and said with a chuckle and contempt for fuel users, You know, if you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you, clearly.

Its no slip of the tongue. This has been the consistent refrain from the administration. Oh, you dont like the price of gas? Good. Buy an electric car so we can hit our climate goals, rube.

This isnt just the Democrats way of handling the green energy versus fossil fuels debate, either. This is their posture toward all their policy goals and all the Americans who disagree with them and might threaten to hold up their agendas.

We watched it throughout Covid. When enough Americans (many of them healthy and young) didnt get the vaccine right away, the administration cracked down and issued federal mandates that workers must get the shot if they wanted to keep their jobs. Oh, youre not getting vaccinated? Fine. Youre fired.

When children were home doing schoolwork under the watchful eyes of their parents, who soon discovered gender propaganda and divisive critical race theory in their kids learning materials, they took the fight to their local school boards to the dismay of Democrats, who then branded them as domestic terrorists. Oh, you dont like masks, CRT, and soft porn for your kids? Fine. Well sic federal law enforcement on you.

Now theyre continuing the same attitude with their climate goals and the Americans who arent on board. Oh, you wont drive electric? Fine. Well drive gas prices so high you cant go anywhere.

Its remarkable in light of what Biden, the media, and even Trump-deranged Republicans promised Americans this administration would be: a return of decency and decorum, an outstretched arm, and unity, unity, UNITY!

Instead, Americans got nothing but division, derision, and coercion and the continuing clear message from the administration and its allies that if you disagree with their policy goals, thats fine. Theyll just make your life a living hell until you have no option but to give in to their control and comply with their demands.

But hey, no mean tweets.

Link:

Biden's Gas Prices Are His Latest Way To Force You To Do What He Says - The Federalist

In the age of Disney-themed weddings and weekend Disney hotel stays that can run $6,000, the House of Mouse has hit on another strategy to shake down their devoted fans. Theyve licensed the Disney name to Arizonas DMB Development, who will build and sell 1,700 homes in a Disney-branded planned community in southern California.

A 618-acre development in Rancho Mirage near Palm Springs, Cotino will feature a large lake as its central focus with a waterfront clubhouse and community association reportedly to be run by Disney-trained staff. Its the first of several communities being branded Storyliving By Disney, although Disney will not develop, build, or sell the homes.

The exact involvement of Disney talent in this first of several residential communities remains unclear. To the fans, Disney has stressed their imagineers have design input. However, local reports note that DMB had already planned a development for that California desert city. Mentions of Disney entertainment and experiences (like cooking classes) are essentially boilerplate marketing at this stage.

But who are they targeting? DeWayne Hamby, an entertainment writer based in the Orlando area, mentions Golden Oak an upscale, secluded Disney-owned subdivision only a few hundred yards from the Magic Kingdom and its signature castle as a potential model for this project. Homes in Golden Oak are priced $2 million to $10 million.

Its for the elite, said Hamby in a phone interview. If youre going to the parks all the time, and then you return home where you live in a Disney neighborhood with a house full of Disney memorabilia, I would say thats a pretty extreme Disney fanatic.

With the Cotino development in southern California only recently breaking ground, the developer may be three or four years from announcing specific prices. What they can do is hype it using Disneys celebrated heritage. For instance, their promotional site mentions Walt and Lillian Disney often visited their vacation home in the Palm Springs area.

Selling goods and experiences using idealized past memories has become American cultures default spin cycle, and no company has perfected it better than Disney. Hamby, raising three daughters in the Orlando area, admits that nostalgia mixed with fun are partly why he and his wife enjoying visiting Walt Disney World. Really, its to be able to experience it through the eyes of our kids.

When Disney targets childless adults for its cradle-to-grave lifestyle, it raises questions.

Several steps up from usual real-estate brochures, Cotino concept art features amenities the project is zoned for but not in immediate plans. Communal spaces look welcoming, framed by mountain vistas. Restaurants and even a grand hotel reveal creative design flourishes.

However, the developments central 24-acre blue lagoon with beachfront areas and a water park in the works has brought criticism from some locals.

I dont know if Palm Springs, the desert, is the right place for Disney, said Alan Long, managing director of a Los Angelesbased real estate brokerage. Were in a drought right now. Disney is going to have some real challenges on its hands.

Similarly, local resident Lucinda Crosby called the Disney developments planned lagoon a water playground in a historic drought.

Disney hasnt yet swooped in with their PR magic to fix the bad press. Perhaps theyve learned from past residential living endeavors to take an arms-length approach.

The city of Celebration, Florida near Orlando began as a master-planned community that carved up some of that valuable Walt Disney World real estate, with renowned neoclassical architects designing Main Street landmarks like a movie theater and city hall. It opened in 1996, following a much-hyped lottery of Disney fans eager to get in.

Disney marketed Celebration as a throwback to 1950s middle America, albeit with pastel-colored homes and palm trees. But costs were prohibitive for most families, with reportedly high demands on homeowners to maintain a certain aesthetic. Businesses that moved to their town center dealt with many unmet promises over years.

Multiple issues reflected poor management. Several car accidents occurred around the idyllic towns retaining pond, with guardrails ultimately installed. A series of unrelated murders rocked the community. Less than a decade after founding the city, Disney divested of its management of the town in 2004, although it still owns most Celebration landmarks and several office buildings where white-collar Disney staff in finance and other departments work.

With Golden Oak, also connected to their Orlando theme park, Disney dropped the charade that they were targeting middle-class families. Starting in 2011, the company began to sell those few dozen homes at exorbitant prices. Great views of nightly fireworks, if you can afford it.

Longtime Disney followers will also point out that EPCOT an acronym for Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow was envisioned by Walt Disney as a futuristic residential community. Following Walts death in 1966, the company spent a decade wrestling with various sketches and concepts to make his big idea work. They ultimately opened it as a theme park.

Cotino and other Storyliving by Disney residential communities will likely have more in common with walled-garden Golden Oak than the open-layout, imitation small-town Celebration.

For newly installed Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek, this Storyliving venture stands among his biggest moves. He started in their home video division during the 90s, when Disney churned out direct-to-video cheapquels like The Fox and the Hound 2. So Chapeks moves so far to raise theme park ticket prices, open an overpriced Star Wars hotel, and move the Imagineering creative team (long based near Disneyland in Anaheim) to Florida for cost reasons perhaps arent surprising.

Hamby, the Orlando-area writer who is also a pastor, says he doesnt pre-judge when his family sees an all-adults group decked out in Mickey ears at Walt Disney World. I dont know what theyre going through, he said. Its very possible that theyve had a loss in their family and are using Disney as an escape, to return to their childhood and help them cope.

But he does suggest two indicators of an unhealthy obsession with Disney and its alluring nostalgic brands. When theme park tickets, collectibles and maybe a Disney-brand house begin to wreck your personal finances and make it rough to pay bills, the fixation has gone off the monorail, said Hamby.

Then theres another attitude he says he observes all the time in a couple theme-park Facebook groups in which he participates. They say, Couldnt we have a day where kids dont get to go to Disney and its all adults? Then we dont have to trip over them. Really? You want to exclude the ones this experience was intended for?

Hamby adds: Theres probably a very much deeper conversation to have about adults not letting go of things really meant for children. Theyre kind of missing the whole point of it.

Will those anti-child attitudes be present in Storyliving by Disney communities? Regardless, observers like real estate expert Sonia Hirt of the University of Georgia see Disney, that once-great American brand, being collapsed into one attribute: escapism.

If you just create a community that is aesthetically pleasing, (will) other things go away? she asked. Theres always this desire to make a utopian tomorrow today, but so many times, tomorrow doesnt quite come.

Josh Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy for several media outlets including The Stream. His articles have appeared in Christianity Today, Religion & Politics, Faithfully Magazine, Religion News Service, and Providence Magazine. A graduate of the University of Colorado, he previously worked on staff at The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family. Josh and his wife live in the Washington, D.C. area with their two children.

Read more from the original source:

Would You Want To Live In This Disney-Themed California Subdivision? - The Federalist

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has begged President Joe Biden and NATO for a no-fly zone for weeksand for weeks now, American neocons, hotheads, Russia hoaxers, sitting congressmen, and corporate media figures eager for escalation with Moscow are calling for it too.

A no-fly zone in Ukraine means NATO would prohibit Russian warplanes from flying through Ukrainian airspace. To do that, NATO fighter jets would engage and shoot down any Russian aircraft they encountered.

As noted by multiple lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle, as well as other experts, a no-fly zone in Ukraine would be an act of war against Russia. It would quickly usher in a conflict between multiple countries with access to nuclear weapons. A no-fly zone wouldnt just mean NATO warplanes shooting down Russian aircraft, it would also throw the door open for Russian warplanes to shoot down American aircraft and take American lives in retaliation.

It means starting World War III, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. People need to understand what a no-fly zone means. Its not some rule you pass that everybody has to oblige by. Its the willingness to shoot down the aircraft of the Russian Federation.

Despite the clear consequences of imposing a no-fly zone, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who was censured by the Republican National Committee for buying into the Democrats lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and targeting political opponents, is just one of the many proponents of this dangerous idea.

To Kinzinger, who has nothing to lose because he isnt running for reelection, a no-fly zone is an opportunity for political grandstanding.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, a likely candidate to become the next ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also quick to call for a strong coalition of like-minded nations to step in and seriously consider a no-fly zone.

Some congressmen have yet to fully embrace such a rash strategy but have signaled a willingness to move toward an air campaign against Russia if the Ukraine conflict worsens.

To take anything off the table, thinking we might not be able to use things because weve already taken it off the table, is wrong, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said when asked by NBCs Chuck Todd if he would support a no-fly zone in Ukraine.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who recently called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said he would endorse a no-fly zone if Putin turned to chemical weapons to fuel his invasion of Ukraine.

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio reportedly joined his congressional colleagues in demanding drastic action via flight restrictions in Ukraine.

Other so-called experts and blue checkmarks on Twitter, egged on by war propaganda, have also endorsed the idea, as did retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, a former supreme allied commander of NATO.

The Washington Post also amplified calls for a no-fly zone. Politico jumped on board by publishing an open letter by 27 foreign policy experts who claimed that the United States and NATO should enact a limited no-fly zone in order to provide humanitarian aid.

What we seek is the deployment of American and NATO aircraft not in search of confrontationwith Russia but to avert and deter Russian bombardment that would result in massiveloss of Ukrainian lives, the letter states.

In addition to the propaganda press calling for a no-fly zone, some supporters have turned to psychological operations such as lullabies and manipulated videos to emphasize their desire for taking out Russian warplanes.

Whether they believe it or not, these bureaucrats and talking heads claim that the only way to end the conflict is to choose the option that will escalate confrontation with Russia and might well lead to U.S. boots on the ground in a full-scale war.

Seventy-eight prominent professors, experts, and other foreign affairs pundits said as much in an open letter last week, which they penned in an effort to communicate just how volatile a no-fly zone would be.

We deplore Russias aggression, admire the bravery of Ukrainians, mourn the loss of innocent life, and wish for a speedy end to the conflict. However, it strains credulity to think that a US war with Russia would make the American people safer or more prosperous, the letter states. To the contrary, going to war with Russia, a nuclear peer of the United States, would expose Americans to vast and unnecessary risks. A war that expands beyond Ukraines borders could also inflict damage across Europe and weaken Americas Nato allies. We call upon the administration to avoid such a gambit and continue to use appropriate diplomatic means and economic pressure to end the conflict.

The type of escalation required by a no-fly zone in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not only unnecessary, but its also unpopular with the American people. While propaganda press pollsters drum up support for a no-fly zone, which they promote as the best way to protect Ukraine from Russian air strikes, most Americans still do not want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

In that, Americans have demonstrated better sense than our talking heads and neocon politicians, who are willing to go to war with Russia under the guise of imposing a no-fly zone.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

Originally posted here:

These Reckless Elites Wish War On The West With Calls For No-Fly Zone - The Federalist

Theres a growing chorus of voices, mostly in Washington and among the corporate press, arguing the United States and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies need to do more to assist Ukraine against Russia. Providing the Ukrainians Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger antiaircraft missiles, as well as small arms and munitions, were told, isnt enough. Nor are the unprecedented and devastating economic sanctions weve leveled against Russia, which arguably amount to a declaration of war.

They say we need to send warplanes, tanks, and advanced weapons systems. Some particularly enthusiastic neocons are even arguing that NATO should impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, directly engaging Russian fighter jets and targets on the ground in a tactical air campaign against the Russians. But, at the very least, NATO allies should send Ukraine some MiG-29 fighter jets, and maybe even U.S. Patriot missile-defense systems.

These arguments tend to gloss over whether the United States and our allies can safely do any of this without embroiling NATO in a war with Russia. Even setting aside the question of a no-fly zone, which the Biden administration has for now ruled out, we are nevertheless trying to get as close to the line of belligerence without crossing over it. It very likely wont be possible. On our current course, whether our leaders realize it or not, were mindlessly marching toward war with Russia.

Proponents of escalation wave this possibility away with appeals to history. Our experience over the past 70 years, they say, shows that Moscow will back down in the face of aggressive measures by the West. Look at the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Look at the U.S. strategic airlift operation to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, even as the Soviet Union was resupplying Egypt and Syria. Much more recently, look at the 2018 Battle of Khasham, in which hundreds of Russian soldiers were killed when they attacked U.S. special forces in Syria.

These historical examples are often paired with others that purport to show a pattern of Russian and American tolerance for the arming and training of one anothers battlefield enemies. The Russians have tolerated the West arming their enemies before, so why should this be any different?

Consider Washingtons intensive support of the Afghan mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. On the Russian side, consider the Soviet advisors stationed in North Vietnam during the war, training and in some cases actively fighting alongside the enemy.

My friend Chuck DeVorecited this example in these pages recently, noting that some 3,000 Soviet advisors were stationed in Vietnam during the war, and that starting in 1964 they were training North Vietnamese fighter pilots and anti-aircraft crews, as well as actively manning anti-aircraft batteries themselves and shooting down American pilots.

Other historical examples along these lines abound, and together they form a rough, two-pronged thesis: Russia will back down when challenged by American power, and Russia will tolerate the arming of its battlefield enemies by the West so long as American soldiers are not the ones pulling the trigger or flying the warplanes. In all of these cases, war never erupted between the Soviet Union and the United States, so why should Ukraine be any different?

To this, one might reply that Ukraine represents a fundamentally different kind of conflict than those cited above. This is not Cuba in 1962, Israel in 1973, or Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is not Vietnam or Syria. All those conflicts, at least on the Russian side, were peripheral. (Cuba was not peripheral for the United States, but its usefulness as an historical precedent in the Ukraine war is rather limited.)

For Russia, the fate of Ukraine is a matter of national security. Its status is of paramount strategic importance for Moscow. One need not agree that itshouldbe to acknowledge that as far as the Kremlin is concerned, itis.

So as the war in Ukraine drags on, and Russian and Ukrainian losses mount, we should not assume that Moscow will react as it has to more peripheral conflicts in the past. We should not take it for granted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who seems to have staked his regime on the successful invasion and subjugation of Ukraine, will simply cut his losses and neatly withdraw the way Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989.

Awareness of all this should also inform policymaking in Washington about whether to encourage and materially support a prolonged Ukrainian insurgency if Russian forces destroy Ukraines military, as they likely will. Is the Biden administration willing to risk war with Russia on the assumption that Moscow will be as tolerant of American sponsorship of Ukrainian guerillas as it was of anti-Soviet Afghan guerillas?

So too, on the question of economic sanctions. Is it the policy of the United States and our NATO allies that Russias economy should be destroyed utterly and its people plunged into generations-long poverty over the invasion of Ukraine? Do they think a policy of prolonged economic warfare can be maintained without Putin at some point deciding that it constitutes an act of war? Are we making plans and preparations in the event he does?

More immediately, are we exploring off-ramps with Ukraine and Russia? Does the Biden administration have in mindpost-war scenarios or negotiated settlementsthat it would not only accept but actively broker?

Or is the only vision of the wars end the maximalist one that Secretary of State Anthony Blinkenarticulated earlier this month, in which a humiliated and defeated Russia withdraws completely from a totally independent and territorially intact Ukraine? If thats the case, then it seems almost certain the war is going to widen beyond Ukraine, and perhaps, to avoid the end-state that Blinken describes, involve the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

None of this is to advocate for the kind of isolationism propounded by some on the so-called New Right. Nor is it to foreswear any and all foreign intervention in the name of our national interest. But it is simply to recognize that this particular war is not easily explained by examples from the Cold War, when everything turned out alright, or by appeals to past events and conflicts on Russias periphery.

Rather, it is to acknowledge bluntly that if the West is not willing to back a negotiated compromise in Ukraine, then our continued military assistance to the Ukrainians, as well as our sanctions regime against Moscow, risks setting in motion a chain of events that we wont be able to control and that could easily lead us into a war with Russia.

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.

Go here to see the original:

In Ukraine, Escalation Risks Pulling NATO Into The War - The Federalist

Judging by the reaction from peers in media, you might think Maria Bartiromo said something incorrect on Sunday when she noted, Some people have told me overthe weekend that they feel thatat the end of the day thisadministration does not seePutin as the enemy, they see himas a partner on many issues.

Its hardly a stretch to imagine someone mentioning that to Bartiromo because its true. Viewers who watched the full clip would have heard Bartiromo specifically cite climate change and the Iran nuclear deal as the issues in question when she made the statement on Fox Newss Sunday Morning Futures.

This entire article in The Wrap, which basically calls Bartiromo an idiot in its headline, doesnt even bother to mention she was talking about climate and Iran, let alone provide the facts that substantiate her point. The same goes for this article in The Daily Beast (they quote Sen. Lindsey Graham saying as much but not Bartiromo) and this one in Mediaite. But the people making those claims to Bartiromo are objectively correct.

You can disagree on whether those partnerships are improper. You can even disagree on whether Bartiromo raising the issue was improper. You cant disagree on the facts.

Relaying the administrations environmental strategy last month, climate envoy John Kerry said the crisis between Russia and Ukraine made him concerned about issues such as the principles of international law and respect for borders, according to Reuters.

I am concerned in terms of the climate efforts that a war is the last thing you need with respect to a united effort to try to deal with the climate challenge, Kerry reportedly told the outlet, adding, Obviously we hope that we can compartmentalize, but its just made that much more difficult without any question.

I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate, Kerry said in February.

Bartiromos sources are clearly concerned with that explicit plan to compartmentalizeto treat Putin as a partner on climate change even while he wages war on another sovereign country.

On Iran, again, the Biden administration is openly working with Russia to salvage their attempt at restoring the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Its fair to describe Russia as a partner in the ongoing negotiations, given that were working to secure a compromise with them right now that would save the deal. Russia is critical to the administrations goal.

Again, this is while Russia is waging a war on Ukraine and while the rest of the world is trying to handle the escalation without provoking a nuclear battle. The nuclear era makes for strange bedfellows, lest we forget the lessons of the past.

If all of this sounds crazy, thats because it is. Bartiromos sources are not wrong to suggest the administration currently sees Putin as a partner on those two issues, nor is it insane to see why those people would be concerned by it. If the administration is currently trying to negotiate a massive deal and it needs Russia to compromise, of course its fair to wonder whether their interests in one case are affecting their interests in another.

The same goes for our negotiations on climate. Asked last fall about how the United States balances Chinas human rights abuses with the need to compromise on climate, Kerry himself said, Life is always full of tough choices, adding, Yes, we have issues, a number of different issues, but first and foremost, this planet must be protected. That reflects a deeply foolish mentality and it seems to be one Kerry is applying to Russia as well.

Again, whether or not you agree with the wisdom of these decisions, the administration is openly continuing to treat Russia as a partner on climate and Iran. Not only was Bartiromo well within the bounds of reason to cite her sources on the matter, she was hit with patronizing attacks from other journalists who seem to have no idea what theyre talking about.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist. 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 and a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Original post:

Maria Bartiromo Is Right: The Biden Administration Is Partnering With Putin - The Federalist

As if shaking butts and lip-syncing to songs that were cool way before iPhones were invented isnt embarrassing enough, at least 30 teens who dominate Communist China-affiliated TikTok are now actively partnering with the Biden administration to spread lies about the problems plaguing Americans.

Gas prices are up, inflation is climbing, and Americans are frustrated, but after a brief about the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the White House this week, TikTok stars are using the pro-political censorship platform to echo President Joe Bidens claims that every crisis in the U.S. is Vladimir Putins fault.

We recognize this is a critically important avenue in the way the American public is finding out about the latest so we wanted to make sure you had the latest information from an authoritative source, White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty said at the briefing.

These naive creators quickly latched onto the White Houses wishes and started cranking out short videos restating the lies that the corrupt press and Americans hear every day from White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. Parroting the Biden administrations favorite excuses for high inflation, gas prices, and other domestic crises, 18-year-old TikTok influencer Ellie Zeiler claimed that its not the presidents fault.

The obvious reason: we are getting out of a two-year pandemic, she said to explain away high gas prices. So with people being scared of war and limited resources, prices are bound to go up.

The truth is obviously far more complex than a one-minute clip flooded with Biden talking points but that doesnt matter to the White House, which is happy to have more favorable publicity among terrible approval ratings, or the TikTokers creating the content.

The Biden administration has a tendency to enlist young people to spread its lies. Last year, the White House brought young pop star Olivia Rodrigo front and center when she agreed to promote the Covid-19 jab and even highlighted Gen Z wannabe-comedian Benny Dramas visit to the West Wing where he drooled over Biden and his team. Biden himself even teamed up with the famous dude with a sign influencer to promote the Covid-19 shot and boost rhetoric used to justify vaccine mandates.

While its weird and creepy (as Saturday Night Live noted) that the White House enlists minors in crop tops who left home for Los Angeles mansions as soon as they went viral to get its propaganda out, the problem runs much deeper.

Whats even more embarrassing than relying on teens who havent even graduated high school to disseminate lies is that these kids will be rewarded for their gullibility by the corporate media and leftists who have no problem hiring dishonest reporters.

The same companies that kept promoting corrupt and compromised anchors and reporters such as Chris Cuomo, Alexi McCammond, and Yamiche Alcindor will gladly recruit these Generation Z icons to work for them. To be fair, these teens already seem to be perfect for the job.

The corrupt corporate media already gladly amplify the lies coming from the Biden administration without hesitation and now these TikTokers are doing the exact same thing. These influencers, who are already being rewarded with press coverage for doing the White Houses bidding, are part of a new generation of immature media figures who will regurgitate whatever the regime tells them to as long as its under the guise of fighting misinformation.

These TikTokers arent foreign or domestic policy experts but the current state of our propaganda press means they will only fail upwards. Their digital fame and gullibility will surely nudge them into industries and positions where they will benefit from falling for the regimes lies.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

Continued here:

Biden's TikTok Propaganda Puppets Will Be Rewarded For Their Gullibility - The Federalist

A funny thing happened last week: a Washington politician displayed leadership, vision, and courage all at the same time, no less!

His name is Rick Scott, the junior U.S. senator from Florida, and the former governor of that free state. He released an 11-point, 60-page agenda explaining what he thinks are the biggest problems America faces today. Not only that, he offered common-sense policy fixes. This was particularly notable because Scott is chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which isresponsible for electing more Republicans to the Senate.

Scott is a principled conservative, so it came as no surprise that Democrats attacked. But what Scott might not have anticipated was how many in his own party would pile on. First behind closed doors, and then in public, senior Senate Republicans not only disavowed Scotts policy agenda, but criticized him for even offering it. It is the second part thats the real problem.

Republican leadership in the Senate had already announced they would not release an agenda. Apparently the issue here was less the policy ideas themselves than Scotts courage to offer them at all. Why? Because doing something makes everyone else look bad.

Yes, because hardly anyone else is doing anything. The Politico story planted by Republican leaders to punish Scott for his impertinence includes this bizarre paragraph:

[Senate Republican Leader Mitch] McConnell wants to avoid giving Democrats things to criticize over the next eight months, hoping to keep his party on offense. He believes that focusing on Bidens low approval ratings and running as a check on the Democratic Party is the most effective midterm strategy. Hes also reluctant to embrace specific policy measures after the Senate GOP failed to repeal Obamacare after a years-long campaign against the law.

This, unfortunately, is how Beltway elites have approached politics for years: say little, do less, and wait for the pendulum of public opinion to swing back your way. In Washington, this passivity is seen as the height of strategic sophistication and message discipline. But outside the nations capital, with citizens playing an increasingly activist role in public affairs, its adherents have become ever more unpopular.

Both parties in Washington have adopted this hide-the-ball strategy for too long and Congress deservedly posts public approval ratings in the 20s. More to the point, what exactly has this strategy ever delivered to Americans?

In the decades that Scotts critics have been in office, the federal budget and national debt have exploded. Our middle class was hollowed out by corporatist deals with authoritarian China. The GOP establishment never managed to secure our borders (the success during the prior administration was largely due to the unilateral actions of President Trump). It further waltzed America into wars without plans to win them. They put quacks like David Souter and John Roberts on the Supreme Court.

What about school choice? Budget cuts? Health care reform? Entitlements?For decades, nothing to see here from them.

Republican elites have for too long downplayed cultural issues because they are supposedly divisive. But its those cultural issues not business tax cuts that propelled Donald Trump to the White House and Republicans to their congressional majorities in 2016. They are the very issues that yielded the stunning gubernatorial win in Virginia in January and, in turn, the ones Democrat campaign chiefs are finding alarmingly potent heading into the 2022 elections.

They are also the issues at the heart of Scotts agenda: illegal immigration, crime, election integrity, critical race theory, cancel culture, and defending religious freedom and the unborn. Scott wants to end Biden-flation, rein in Big Tech, and grow the economy. Those are all problems people want solved.

Wokism, socialisms 21st-century manifestation in modern society, is making everything worse. Conservative reforms like Scotts would improve them.

Scott is doing what he thinks is right, and is being punished for it, by his own leaders. I know the feeling. When I served in the Senate, I regularly tried to force votes on issues that divided Democrats from the public: earmarks, amnesty, runaway spending, and debt. Since my Republican colleagues paid lip service to things like border security and limited government, I assumed they would support me. But at every turn, this same Senate leadership team tried to stop me.

Why dont we just do what we said we would do? I would ask them. I usually got their answers in hit pieces, which were also frequently planted in Politico.

But it has always been conservative outsiders who win public support and policy fights: Ronald Reagan, Trump, Ron DeSantis, and my friends at the House Freedom Caucus. These leaders have risen to the occasion by driving straight toward challenges, not hiding from them behind squishy language and canned promises.

Some will inevitably ask, Why is Rick Scott laying out a new Republican agenda? The question that should be posed, however, is, Why is he the only one? The answer has more to do with Scotts courage than his critics cleverness.

View post:

GOP Wants To Take Congress Without Telling Voters Why They Should - The Federalist