Category Archives: Federalist

Russias invasion of Ukraine should be a wake-up call for the sleeping European Union countries getting fat and lazy under Americas cozy security blanket. But it should also be a wake-up call for Americans who care about the U.S. military, because that security blanket is being pulled apart by the far-left.

War is the continuation of policy by other means, and how a country fights is a reflection of its domestic politics. If the left is allowed to control Americas military, well soon be defended by social justice snowflakes, armed with weak sanctions and copies of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Gen. Jim Mattis is right: the United States isnt predestined to win the next war. Thankfully, Ukraine isnt our war; 20 years of recent American bloodshed was enough. But one day our backs might be against the wall and we may not have a military capable of winning. While Washington has been obsessed with gender and race, Moscow and Beijing have been building armies undistracted by political correctness.

And I promise you that this woke obsession is going to cost lives, because mortars dont pick between people when they explode and projectiles dont care about skin color or genitalia. When bullets start ricocheting off Humvee doors, all the B.S. you think matters goes right out the window. In that moment, all that counts are the lives of the men and women around you.

If youve experienced combat, you know why theres no room for wokeism in the military. Its completely contradictory to mission success. What matters on the battlefield is the diversity of your firepower, not the diversity of your personnel.

My generation of veterans proves that the answer to race in the military is to judge people on merit, not identity. We just spent two decades risking life, limb, and eyesight fighting a war together; skin color, religion, and identity were irrelevant. We celebrated diversity by maintaining high standards.

I fought side by side with Afghans and Iraqis. While they bickered over tribal differences, their race, creed, and color werent a factor when I selected fighting forces from among them. Americans dont care about tribal differences, because were are all one tribe.

But thats not what our soldiers are being told. Instead, critical race theory is pitting our men and women in uniform against each another and the very country for which they fight. Its hurting unit cohesion and damaging mission success.

You cant go to war if you dont believe in your countrys values. You cant enforce American foreign policy at the point of a black rifle if you doubt its virtue. And you cant defend the person next to you if you think they are your oppressor because of their skin color.

The far-left is forcing the same social engineering in the military that they force into everything else. When you select warfighters for anything other than capability, youre going to get people killed.

Whats to prevent the military academies from taking race into account when admitting cadets? What happens to retention if some of the best noncoms are denied entry to the senior leader course because theyre the wrong color? What happens to combat effectiveness if theres a race-based points system during Special Forces selection?

To most Americans, especially in the military community, this would be plain stupid. Not only is it morally wrong but, despite what youve been told, most Americans arent racists: we still believe in Martin Luther King Jr. and we want a color-blind society.

The military is one of the institutions that has historically helped to achieve Kings dream. Thats because its a forcing function, putting every kind of American in situations where each must succeed together regardless of his identity. The best business school in the country isnt Harvard or Yales, its the U.S. military, teaching on campuses from Parris Island to Fort Bragg.

As a result, veterans provide a pool of talented leaders who contribute to their communities, uninterested in ideology. If youre trying to complete a mission or turn a profit, you just want the best people.

This is why the far-left is gunning for our soldiers. In only one recent example, the U.S. Department of Defense saw fit to tweet an article telling soldiers that woke ideas like equity are necessities. Theyre destroying the military in order to change our domestic culture and in doing so, theyre jeopardizing our ability to win wars.

Everyone who loves America should take the wake-up call of the Ukraine invasion very seriously. Despite the Biden administrations wishful thinking, war is unfortunately part of the human condition. When the next one comes, our military needs to be made up of the most talented warfighters available, not people picked on the basis of their identity.

They need to know that they are doing the right thing, on behalf of a good and just United States. And they need a president who has the backbone to say so.

Evan Hafer is a former Army Special Forces soldier and CIA contractor. He is currently CEO of Black Rifle Coffee.

Read the original:

Diversity And Equity In The US Military Endangers National Security - The Federalist

America determined decades ago that unionizing the military was a terrible idea. Yet last month, the Biden administrations Justice Department signaled in a court filing that National Guard troops on state active duty can organize as if theyre civilian first responders or civil servants, and members of the National Guard in Texas are now using the DOJs position as justification to start unionizing.

The filing arose from a case in Connecticut where the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the largest unions in the United States with 1.6 million members, sued to demand that Connecticut National Guard members on state active duty had the right to unionize during the Covid-19 lockdowns. Without the governor deploying the National Guard as a public health stopgap, AFSCME might have had more leverage to demand higher pay and more positions. The National Guard undercut their negotiating power.

Following the Biden DOJ filing in the Connecticut case, some disgruntled members of the Texas National Guard are now starting to unionize as well. They cite poor conditions and unreliable paychecks while serving in Republican Gov. Greg Abbotts large-scale response to the Biden border crisis known as Operation Lone Star. Even if, as some critics charge, Operation Lone Star is merely political theater, its mobilized 10,000 of Texass almost 19,000 Army and Air National Guard members to the border to augment the U.S. Border Patrol and Texass Department of Public Safety state police.

Texas law bans strikes and collective bargaining for state employees. But unions, or associations as theyre often called in Texas, still have clout. The effort in Texas is being led by the AFL-CIO.

In both instances, union leadership is likely motivated by membership and dues which, in turn, generate more political power to push pay and benefits for government employees higher still a virtuous circle from the unions standpoint.

As for the Texas border mission, Abbott and the states Republican leadership (with some Democrat support) describe Operation Lone Star as a necessary response to a complete breakdown in border security since Biden took office in Jan. 2021. Abbotts opponents, including former Rep. Beto ORourke, who is seeking to replace Abbott as Texass governor, call it a political game. They also cite poor conditions and difficulty in getting paychecks out.

My last post before retiring from the Army National Guard was as Deputy J1 (Personnel) for the California National Guard. Hearing of poor conditions and delayed pay isnt unusual. Unfortunately, the National Guard uses a separate pay system from the federal government for state missions and it always has issues. Poor conditions? Thats just part of the military mission.

But as the nationwide director of the Army National Guard, Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen, observed, What may be described as a political decision can also be described as a security decision, depending on where you sit on the issue. We cant get caught up on whether border security is a political issue or not.

Although the reasons may be different, the negative effects of unionizing our armed forces on military service would be the same now as they were four decades ago. In 1975, only two years after the United States eliminated the draft and went to an all-volunteer military, there was an attempt to unionize.

That effort was led by the American Federation of Government Employees, an AFL-CIO affiliate. As the military dealt with deep challenges ranging from poor morale to drug abuse, racial strife, and funding cuts in the wake of the dismal end of the Vietnam War, up to half of service members were said to be open to unionizing and six NATO nations featured unionized troops.

But the thought of unionizing the U.S. military quickly died as public opinion and Congress considered military service a unique calling. Unlike unionized jobs where work was viewed as merely occupational, military service was a higher calling it was distinctly honorable.

Congress was also concerned about radical leftists, like those belonging to the Students for a Democratic Society and the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, who organized the American Servicemens Union. But this union wasnt a device for traditional workplace organizing; rather, it was a tool to organize opposition to national defense policy within the military itself.

As Congress found at the time:

Members of the armed forces of the United States must be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States and of their fellow citizens. (2) Discipline and prompt obedience to lawful orders of superior officers are essential (3) collective bargaining cannot and should not be applied to the relationships between members of the armed forces and their military and civilian superiors.

The unionization effort formally ended with President Jimmy Carters signature on S. 274, a bill introduced by Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, in 1978. Then-Senator Joe Biden was 34 years old when he signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill to ban unionizing the military.

The law outlawed organizing any member of the armed forces and defined members as people on active duty or reserve component members while performing inactive-duty training.

But that definition doesnt cover all forms of military service. For instance, the National Guard employs technicians, and many of them are unionized. These specialists, often mechanics, logisticians, or human resources staff, are paid like federal civil servants, but they work in armories while wearing their military uniform and, on the weekends or during training, they join their citizen-soldier colleagues as military members of the National Guard.

There are fundamental principles surrounding federalism and state powers in play as well. Governors are their states commanders in chief. Their authority over the militia both the organized militia (the National Guard) and unorganized militia (those owing allegiance to the nation) mirrors, and even predates, that of the presidents as commander in chief of the armed services and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

As such, allowing any union interference in the civilian and military chain of command would be injurious to the good order and discipline of the military in this case, the organized militia of a state.

Unfortunately, the Texas National Guard, when asked about the potential for union representation for its soldiers on the Operation Lone Star mission, issued a noncommittal response. Col. Rita Holton, the public affairs director for the Texas Military Department, said the Texas Guard has no policy prohibiting employee membership in external support organizations. This appears to give an official green light to unionizing the Guard in Texas.

Of course, if a governors actions in deploying the National Guard are viewed negatively by the public, theres a good chance that governor will suffer political consequences, as well as recruiting and retention challenges within the National Guard in a state. The timing of Bidens Justice Department filing, while ostensibly connected to a case in Connecticut, seems aimed at Texas, where Abbott is challenging Bidens military vaccination mandate and Bidens methodical abandonment of border security.

In the meantime, the resurrection of an idea killed by Congress 44 years ago will curtail the executive power of all 50 governors, add to the ranks of union membership, increase government union bargaining power, and degrade the ability of the National Guard to be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States.

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

Read more here:

Why Biden Admin's Plan To Unionize The National Guard Is A Horrible Idea - The Federalist

Since I helped found the Convention of States Project in 2013, Ive heard many objections to the idea of convening state legislatures to amend the U.S. Constitution. Using the process the founders laid out in Article V would allow states to work together to pass limits on federal spending, government power, and politicians terms in office.

Seventeen of the 34 states needed to call the convention have passed resolutions in favor of it, but the movement is not without its critics. Many of the objections Ive heard before appeared in Elaine Donnellys recent article in this publication, Why Is The Right Betting The Constitution On An Article V Convention?

Usually, those objections are coming from the same people and organizations Donnelly claims will rig a Convention of States in their favor. Nearly 250 leftist organizations, many funded by billionaire George Soros, have come out against the Convention of States option.

This coalition has gathered around the ultra-left-wing group Common Cause and includes leftist powerhouses like the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and state chapters of Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO. Hillary Clinton has also thrown her influence (such as it is) behind the effort to oppose a Convention of States.

Clinton, Soros, and other organizations join a long line of left-wing activists who in the mid-20th century suckered conservatives into opposing the Convention of States option which could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade and other big-government initiatives.

Ive seen firsthand how the left offers the exact same arguments against the Convention of States Project as those outlined by Donnelly. Soros-backed groups show up regularly in committee hearings to argue against the Convention of States Resolution. They try to convince state legislators that the process is untried, too dangerous, and will open the Constitution to all kinds of terrible amendments.

Clearly, if the left believed they could rig an Article V Convention of States, its news to them.

Or maybe, the left has come out against the Convention of States movement (currently backed by over 5 million supporters and activists) because they know that a Convention of States can effectively and permanently decentralize power away from Washington.

Article V allows the states to call a convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. At this convention, states propose and vote on constitutional amendments that must be ratified post-convention by 38 states.

Its important to note that Donnelly calls an Article V amendments-proposing convention a constitutional convention. This might sound like nitpicking, but the difference matters.

The 1787 constitutional convention operated under the sovereignty of the states. They were empowered by their state legislatures to make any changes as may be necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the Exigencies of the Union. In other words, the states in 1787 had the authority to write an entirely new Constitution, offer a new ratification process, and submit that to the states.

Not so with an Article V Convention of States. It would operate under the authority of Article V and therefore must adhere to the process outlined therein. Thirty-four states must apply for a convention, and 38 states must ratify any amendment proposals by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

That 38-state threshold is an extremely high bar and ensures that only the best, most popular amendments will become part of our founding document.

But what if, as Donnelly says, liberal activists crash the Con-Con party and whatever ratification process ensues? Donnellys fear is understandable, but it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of who controls the Article V process.

To answer this question, a quick history lesson is in order. In the waning days of the constitutional convention, George Mason stood up to point out a serious flaw in the original draft of Article V. In that draft, only the national Congress was permitted to propose amendments.

Mason objected that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, according to James Madisons notes. Mason proposed, and the framers unanimously adopted, a second method for proposing constitutional amendments: one that was to be directed and governed by the states.

The states control the Article V process. If they didnt, the second method for proposing amendments would be entirely redundant. Why would the framers include two methods for proposing amendments if both were controlled by the U.S. Congress?

Donnelly also suggests that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would have the power to select delegates and that they could exclude Republican choices, but this is incorrect. The states choose their own representatives, and while states like California and New York will no doubt send radical leftists, Republicans control 31 state legislatures. This will give Republicans an overwhelming majority at a Convention of States as well as during the ratification process.

Donnelly seems to believe that Article V gives Congress the power to control a convention when it says that Congress calls it. But as the nations leading Article V expert, Rob Natelson, outlines in his seminal work, The Law of Article V, Congress duty in this process is exclusively ministerial.

Just like the DMV must give you your drivers license if you complete the required certifications, Congress must call an Article V convention if 34 states apply for one. The extent of its power to call is to name the time and place for the convention. The DMV agent doesnt control the licensing process, and neither will Congress control the Article V process.

As Natelson outlines, there have been dozens of interstate conventions over the course of our nations history. These conventions limited their topics of conversation, each state sent its own representatives, and each state received one vote no matter the states population. The framers were familiar with this process, which is why they didnt outline how an Article V Convention of States would operate. But thanks to legal scholars and historians like Natelson, we know, too.

Clinton and Soros are dead set against calling a Convention of States because they know Article V is the best way to decentralize power away from Washington and return power to the states and the people. They know that a Convention of States can propose constitutional amendments that limit federal power and eliminate the alphabet soup of federal agencies. Other amendments can force Congress to cut spending while further amendments can impose term limits on federal officials.

They also know that the states, which are overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans, will control the process from beginning to end. This is why leftists cant rig a Convention of States, and its why anyone who cares about limiting federal power should join the movement to use the founders tool to put Washington back in its place.

Mark Meckler is the president and co-founder of the Convention of States Action.

See original here:

If Leftists Could Rig A Convention Of The States, Why Do They Oppose It? - The Federalist

Our kids extracurricular activity was at a location not near anyones house. It was also a long one, clocking in at two hours. While theoretically the parents could have gone home after dropping off the kids and returned to pick them up, a husband and wife had a better idea: Why dont we go grab a beer and some queso at the Mexican restaurant just a few blocks away?

While wed interacted a handful of times, wed never hung out as adults. It had always been as parents, which meant our impromptu gathering involved normal getting-to-know-you pleasantries. When it was my turn to answer the question about what I do, I thought for a moment and admitted Im currently between things when it comes to daytime employment, adding, Plus, Im publicly a right-wing nut job, which likely doesnt help me in the current climate.

I wasnt sure how theyd respond, as many of us who work, or in my case worked, in more stereotypical corporate environments have learned to keep our mouths shut. Theres a prevailing sentiment amongst right thinking (which isnt to say right politically) people that everyone they interact with thinks just like them. The deplorables are elsewhere. So, they say things they consider unobjectionable and we let them go, not wanting to risk cancellation.

At this juncture, I must add that I was not canceled from my previous job, sadly, as that may have been helpful to me. Theres no such thing as bad publicity, right? Maybe next time.

Nor was I canceled at the Mexican joint. Instead, it was as if Id just given the secret handshake, Id spoken the password, Id unlocked the message with my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. Turns out, despite assumptions, and we all know the thing about assumptions, we were in the trust tree, able to speak freely. And we did, up until we returned to the facility just in time to retrieve our kids.

Theres a reason we start by not speaking freely, of course, and its mostly because the internet ruins things. People spout off in ways they wouldnt otherwise. Theres a very low risk theyre going to get slugged in the mouth through their screen. Opinions crystallize in excessive directions, like defunding the police or suggesting parents dont have a say in their kids educations or that boys and girls are interchangeable.

Add to that that social media, especially Twitter, has a huge bias toward left-wingers, and it seems like our numbers are smaller than they are. It skews our perception about what sorts of opinions people actually hold.

Now, I have no idea who these parents voted for or what party theyre registered with. It wasnt a purity test moment that any of us passed. Nor am I suggesting we limit ourselves to ideological bubbles based on which team were rooting against. (There are people who actually like one of the parties, but for the most part, we just dislike one of them less than we dislike the other. As to people who actually like politicians, Ive got a Reagan quip for you, but you probably wouldnt laugh because of who said it.)

The conversation that followed me outing myself was mostly about things that we as parents are concerned with, whether it be female role models the media tries to push or Covid policies. Suffice it to say, no one at the table ever had an Im With Her sticker or wants kids in masks.

Ive also had such conversations with those who dislike Republicans more, though those tended to lean more toward confession than philosophical discussion. Apparently, Im a safe space for progressives in which they can admit their heterodox opinions.

But life is not the internet, as my experience shows, and we should all be clamoring for more of these real-life conversations, ones that require us to be honest about what we believe. Well, most of what we believe. Its probably best not to lead with things like If were talking equity, how come the average person doesnt have a tank or even a rocket launcher since the government does?

Thats obviously just something I made up and not a real opinion I hold, by the way. We can discuss it more, though, after a few more trips to the cantina.

In my case, as a contributor to this online publication, I sometimes assume that Im more of a known quantity. In terms of job applications, thats likely true as The Federalist is at the top of my rsum. Id rather be blackballed by closed-minded organizations than quietly be a mercenary for one that loudly wants to make the country my kids will inherit worse. As Im just one man, this will have no effect, but also it really isnt hard to Google me, so being upfront is a time-saver.

But most people you encounter, whether its at the annual HOA meeting or through your kids extracurricular activities, arent going to Google you on a whim. If they do, you should probably avoid them regardless of what you agree on or what they were able to find. Which isnt to say you should turn your politics into your personality. Too many people do that already.

We do need to stop censoring ourselves, though. We cant be afraid to admit what we believe, especially when a surprising amount of people privately agree with us. Because the sooner we all reclaim our voices, loudly and proudly, the better off well be as a people.

And if anyone gives you grief for doing so, for entertaining wrongthink, just tell them youre living your truth. Theyre not allowed to argue with that.

See the original post here:

Why You Should Out Yourself As A Conservative - The Federalist

Watching the screen on a gas pump while filling your vehicles tank is liable to induce a panic attack. Paying for a used car almost requires taking out a second mortgage. Speaking of mortgages, members of the middle class are being priced out of the housing market as home prices march relentlessly upward.Many price increasesare out of control.

How did we get here? A little over a year ago, and in the years before the Covid-19 pandemic, most prices were relatively stable. But more recently, general price inflation is at a 40-year high.

The late economist Milton Friedman helped explain the inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. His explanation helped shape the strong economic recovery of the 1980s, built on the principles of limited government, with sound monetary policy that resulted in a steep decline in what had been rampant, double-digit inflation.

Friedman pointed out that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. The seemingly force majeure is actually a manmade problem, caused by the Federal Reserve (Fed) creating too much money. These principles of money and inflation arent new.

But those lessons are being disregarded by some in the economics profession. People likeStephanie Keltonhave been promotingModern Monetary Theory(MMT), which is virtually a complete reversal of what Friedman espoused and history demonstrated. This theory contends that the federal governments current deficit spending isnt an issue it can, and should, be solved by the Fed creating money to fund it without concern about inflation as long as the U.S. dollar is the worlds reserve currency.

President Joe Biden has not openly endorsed MMT, but hes no fan of Friedman either. Instead, he seems content to have many mostly younger congressional Democrats advocate for MMT, which provides convenient and seemingly academic reasoning for financing more federal spending without explicitly raising taxes. It has a similar political appeal that Keynesianism presented almost a century ago, and MMT is just as flawed.

But proponents of MMT do get one thing correct the Fed can create money to service the debt and avoid a default. But in real terms, meaning adjusting for inflation, this assertion is false. Creating money to service the debt devalues the currency. Investors then receive a lower real return on their holdings of federal debt.

Furthermore, everyone is hurt by inflation, whether they own government bonds or not. Inflation is essentially a tax, as it robs people of their purchasing power at no fault of their own. Everyone who received a 7.5 percent raise over the last year probably thought they would be able to afford more stuff, but they were deceived. Inflation rose just as much so there was no real raise.

But MMT proponents claim that the massive budget deficits are what allow people to save money. Were it not for those deficits, they contend, people would have no cash to save. At first glance, the pandemic seemed to support that. People received transfer payments from the government and saved much of them due to uncertainty. But more recently, peoples savings are being depleted as this dependency on government dries up and prices soar.

Now that inflation is running amok, MMT adherents believetax increases are the primary (if not only) cure. They claim inflation is not caused by the Fed creating too much money, but by people having too much money to spend; taxation will remove that excess liquidity and stop inflation.

However, MMT doesnt explain why its only inflationary when people spend money, but not when the government spends it. Somehow the Fed creating money by purchasing government debt miraculously doesnt bid up prices for scarce resources. The theory sounds more like a belief than science something that must be trusted rather than demonstrated.

Specifically,MMT ideologyis built on mathematical relationships between economic variables like private and public savings and debt rather than a strong theoretical construct, and breaks down quickly when analyzed withsound economic theory. Moreover, these relationships seem to be used to derive a funding mechanism for theirbig-government policy goals, such as a federal jobs guarantee, universal healthcare, and other costly initiatives.

But MMT is not entirely wrong on using taxation to stop inflation. If those taxes are used to pay for deficit spending which really should be done byspending less rather than the Fed financing it, then higher taxes can lower inflation. But that is far too nuanced of an explanation for MMT, which paints in much broader brushstrokes.

Regardless, MMT cannot dispel the hard truths of monetary policy, which is inflation comes from one place the Fed. When the Fed creates money faster than the real economy grows, prices will rise; its that simple.

To alleviate the uncertainty and distortions across the economy of bad policies in Washington, there should be bindingfiscal and monetary rulesbased on sound economics instead of ideology. This should include changing government spending by less than the growth in personal incomes and only changing the money supply to keep prices stable.

Almost two years after President Biden declared Milton Friedman isnt running the show anymore, the late economist is clearly the one with the last laugh. Perhaps next time, the president will think twice before speaking ill of the dead.

E.J. Antoni, Ph.D., is an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a senior fellow with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and was the associate director for economic policy at the White Houses Office of Management and Budget from 2019 to 2020.

E. J. Antoni and Vance Ginn

View post:

Inflation Comes From The Fed, Contra Modern Monetary Theory - The Federalist

U. S. History: From the Colonial Period to 1817

THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM: FEDERALISTS V. REPUBLICANS

POLITICAL PARTIES

POLITICAL PARTIES are organizations that mobilize voters on behalf of a COMMON SET OF INTERESTS, concerns, and goals. In many countries political parties play a crucial part in the democratic process. The functions of political parties include:

Formulating political agendas

Selecting candidates

Conducting election campaigns

Managing the work of elected representatives

Providing the means by which people can have a voice in government.

1st POLITICAL PARTIES

FEDERALISTS

REPUBLICANS

Constituency

Merchants, bankers, manufacturers from New England and the middle-Atlantic states.

Artisans, shopkeepers, small farmers, and large plantation owners from the South and from western regions at the nation.

Leadership

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

THOMAS JEFFERSON

View of Human Nature

Hamilton, a self-made man, distrusted the people. Man, he thought, is naturally selfish, unreasonable, and violent.

Jefferson, born to wealth and social position, thought that if men are given the opportunity, they are naturally decent and reasonable.

Attitude Toward Government

Believed in a highly CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT as a means of keeping order.

Saw the common people as unable to govern themselves.

Believed that government should be as far removed from the people as possible.

Favored a strong federal government and limited powers for the states.

Advocated a strong executive department and strong courts to maintain order and insure justice.

Favored a standing army.

Wanted to imitate British aristocracy (rule by the rich) without a king.

Willing to censor the press for political power.

Believed in a MINIMUM OF GOVERNMENT to safeguard the rights of the people.

Saw the common people as able to govern themselves.

Believed that government should be as close to the people as possible.

Favored local government over national because it was closer to the people.

Favored Congress over the other branches of government because it best reflected the popular will.

Opposed standing armies because a military leader might seize control of the government.

Wanted more democracy than in the British parliament.

Favored freedom of speech & press.

Wanted greater involvement by the people through lower voting qualifications.

Favored reducing government interference by decreasing and number of federal officeholders.

View of the Constitution

Held LOOSE CONSTRUCTIONIST view that the Federal government had implied powers not listed in the Constitution (i.e., the Federal government had all the powers not expressly forbidden it by the Constitution).

Held STRICT CONSTRUCTIONSIT view that the Federal governments powers should be limited in favor of states rights (i.e., the Federal government had only the powers expressly stated in the Constitution).

Foreign Policy Perspective

Favored Great Britain in culture and trade.

Distrusted Great Britain and wanted closer relations with France because it had just been through a democratic revolution.

The Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong national government. Reading broadly into the Constitution (loose constructionism), they argued that government power should be used to promote economic development through the creation of a national bank and the construction of federally-financed roads, harbors, and bridges. Federalists believed that America's economic future depended on the cultivation of strong commercial ties with Great Britain. And they argued that America's emerging manufacturing sector should be encouraged through protectionist measures such as tariffs.

The Republicans, also called Democratic-Republicans, were led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They supported a weaker national government restricted in its powers by a narrow reading of the Constitution (strict constructionism). They feared that federal intervention in the economy would benefit only a few wealthy northeasterners, and they believed that agriculture, not manufacturing, should remain the country's economic base. Republicans opposed closer ties to Britain and tended to sympathize with the French in their revolution and subsequent war with the British.

While the Federalists dominated the government through the 1790s, they rapidly declined after 1800. Thomas Jefferson's election to the presidency was bolstered by Republican victories in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Federalists remained powerful enough to obstruct certain Republican measures for about a decade, but they were not strong enough to prevent the United States from going to war against Britain in 1812a war the Federalists vehemently opposed. Their continuing opposition to the war, even after it began, severely damaged their viability as a national party. When the United States survived its war with Britain and won tremendous victories at Baltimore and New Orleans, the Federalists' reputation was shotand their national political clout was over.

For the next decadea period sometimes called "The Era of Good Feelings"the United States was essentially a one-party nation; the Republicans governed with little opposition. But factions within the party soon emerged, and these factionslabeled National Republicans and Democratic Republicanseventually morphed into the dominant parties that would define the second party era, lasting from 1828 to the mid-1850s.

View original post here:

Democratic-Republicans vs Federalist - United States History

As Virginia rounds the corner in its first session of 2022, legislation passed in the states pro-life House faces major challenges in the Senate. Although Virginia ushered in a pro-life governor this January, the Senate is still controlled by pro-abortion Democrats.

Last Tuesdays crossover day marked a turning point in the 60-day session, as bills passed in the House and Senate moved down the hall for further votes. The Republican-controlled Virginia House passed HB 304, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, sponsored by Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper. The bill requires an abortionist to provide life-saving treatment for a child born alive after a failed abortion. It passed 52-48 along party lines.

Del. Dave LaRock, R-Loudoun, filed a mirror bill, HB 1349, and said he expects Senate Democrats to recognize the necessity of the basic human rights measure following public fallout from former Gov. Ralph Northams radical abortion interview in 2019. Northam spoke in favor of infant death without any attempt at medical intervention if an abortion failed.

That comment by then-governor Northam shocked the world by revealing that Northam was among the most radically pro-abortion advocates who would allow a living, breathing baby to be denied proper care, treated as medical waste, and left to die, LaRock said. I am hopeful there will be enough Democrats who see infanticide as going too far. If that happens, the law will go to [Republican] Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin and I am confident that, given the opportunity, he will sign it.

Currently, 35 states have passed similar legislation. Its one of two main life issues before the Virginia legislature this session, along with the parameters for informed consent before women obtain an abortion.

Once a baby is born aliveevery possible medical care should be provided. Why isnt that obvious to everyone? said John Seeds, an OB-GYN and former department chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University. At birth, they become a legal citizen and appropriate care should be required.

The Republican-majority House also passed the Informed Consent/Womens Right to Know bill Tuesday, introduced by Del. Karen Greenhalgh, R-Virginia Beach, to restore requirements removed by pro-abortion legislators in 2020. The bill would require abortion providers to present women with fully accurate, written information regarding the abortion procedure, available pregnancy support resources, and their rights prior to an abortion.

Any woman contemplating abortion should be provided all information about the procedure including short- and long-term complications and the nature of the infant being aborted, Seeds commented. Otherwise, she is making a decision without all the needed information.

The first pro-life bill to make it to the House docket in three years, HB 212 requires basic informed consent previously in place in Virginia.

Helping mothers and fathers make informed decisions, which could include adoption for unwanted infants, will likely result in a win-win situation, said LaRock, sponsor of several pro-life bills this session. Mothers are going to avoid the guilt that may come with the irreversible decision to abort her baby. Babies find loving homes.

Yet the Democrat-controlled Senate has proven a tough battleground for pro-lifers, with losses and wins in the sessions first 30 days. Sen. Amanda Chase, R-Chesterfield, described Senate Republicans and Democrats as sitting on either side of a chasm on major issues.

You might get a couple of bills I call do nothing bills that are going to pass, but significant legislation thats going to have meaningful impactits going to be hard to come by this session, she said.

Chase introduced legislation to restrict abortions to 20 weeks of gestation in Virginia, based on medical evidence that an unborn child experiences immense pain by that point. The pain capable bill would allow for terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life or health were at risk, with the intent of giving the unborn child the best chance to survive.

Sen. Siobahn Dunnavant, R-Henrico, a licensed OB-GYN in the state, provided strong testimony in favor of SB 710, which was also supported by Youngkin, Chase said. The bill was defeated in the Senate Education and Health Committee late last week.

This bill was really a bill that showed compassion on the unborn, Chase said. Its a humanity bill. Its recognizing a baby can feel pain and that we as a society need to be humane to those babiesAn unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock.

Surrogacy law in the Commonwealth currently allows a couple contracting with a surrogate to require an abortion of a disabled unborn child or to abort multiples. Sen. Mark J. Peake, R-Lynchburg, sponsored SB 163 to prohibit the practice.

This fixes a very bad problem in Virginia, to get [the state] out of the business of abortion under our surrogacy laws, said Olivia Gans-Turner, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life. The law is so old most legislators didnt know it was there until 2020, when a bill prohibiting it died in committee under a Democrat-majority House. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of the bill this session.

An assisted suicide legalization bill introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate failed to pass the Senate on a tie vote. Budgetary items, to include a Hyde Amendment bill limiting taxpayer funding of abortions in the state, will be considered later in the session.

Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband.e who lives in Virginia.

Read more from the original source:

Virginia Democrats Vote For Allowing Babies Who Survive Abortions To Die - The Federalist

West Virginia Republican Treasurer Riley Moore axed his states relationship with BlackRock last month over the $10 trillion investment firms dual loyalty to Chinese interests and woke capitalism.

As the states chief financial officer and chairman of the Board of Treasury Investments, I have a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are managed in a responsible, financially sound fashion which reflects the best interests of our state and country, and I believe doing business with BlackRock runs contrary to that duty, Moore said in a press release at the time.

Now the colossal Wall Street firm is void of oversight for the states investment fund, a liquid account worth approximately $1.5 billion. While it might not be much money to BlackRock, Moore tells The Federalist, its a hell of a lot for the people of West Virginia, and far too much to park with an investment firm infected by corporate wokeism working to defraud the states more than 1.7 million residents.

Despite holding $85 billion in coal assets as of January last year, BlackRock has emphasized its commitment to reaching net-zero carbon emissions, a near-term pledge incompatible with a flourishing energy industry reliant on instantaneous power provided by fossil fuels. The commitment while fostering Chinese investment has prompted well-founded skepticism about whether BlackRock has the best interests of its clients at stake.

Last week, the educational nonprofit Consumers Research unveiled a multi-million-dollar campaign to expose BlackRocks close ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The watchdog published a new website on BlackRocks CEO, WhoIsLarryFink.com, and debuted new ads for TV and radio complemented by mobile billboards in New York City, where the firm is headquartered.

Larry Fink and BlackRock are really delivering a one-two punch to the American economy, Consumers Research Executive Director Will Hild told The Federalist. One the right hand theyre using the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) scam to hamper American companies and make it harder to serve American consumers, on the left hand theyre funneling billions of dollars to the Chinese communist owned business to help them build the Chinese economy.

The campaign comes on the heels of a letter Hild sent in December to 10 governors, including West Virginia, warning both consumers and governments about BlackRocks relationship with China, where the leading investment firm has made cultivating Chinese assets a priority. Fink admitted that much in his 2020 letter to shareholders at the onset of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.

I continue to firmly believe China will be one of the biggest opportunities for BlackRock over the long term, both for asset managers and investors, despite the uncertainty and decoupling of global systems were seeing today, Fink wrote in a passage now deleted from the letter currently on the companys website. By August of the same year, BlackRock was awarded the first entirely foreign-owned mutual fund operating in China.

BlackRocks funneling of billions in U.S. capital to China carries with it risks not present in other markets, risks that threaten the large wagers the company is putting on steep returns from the Middle Kingdom, Hild warned governors late last year. Chinese firms are not held to the same transparency standards as their western counterparts, so foreign investors are often hard pressed to appreciate the true risk profile of what theyre investing in.

More than $75 billion in pension funds among the states reporting such data, meanwhile, remain in BlackRocks hands, according to Consumers Research.

Some conservative policymakers have begun to heed Hilds warning, motivated also by Wall Streets growing ideological hostility to fossil fuels. Beyond Moores efforts in West Virginia, lawmakers in Texas and Florida have also made moves to counteract BlackRocks undue influence.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently moved to strip proxy vote power over state finances from companies that foster investment in China while managing taxpayer dollars. That would include BlackRock, which oversees billions from Floridas pensions and investment funds. According to Bloomberg, BlackRock held $227 million in a fund focused on Chinese markets in late June.

The state pension plan has also invested in separate private equity and investment funds with exposure to China in particular, Bloomberg reported.

Further west in Texas, the company hired a team of lobbyists in Austin to protect its more than $20 billion handled as legislators prepare to follow Moores lead in withdrawing state business from the New York firm. After years of railing against fossil fuels in the name of politically correct investment practices, corporate executives are now engaged in double-speak to protect its access to public funds.

In January, Alex Epstein, the founder of Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, reported company leaders sent a memo reassuring lawmakers who govern the top oil producer in the country of BlackRocks commitment to back the industry.

We will continue to invest in and support fossil fuel companies, including Texas fossil fuel companies, read the memo sent at the start of the year. Weeks later, Fink wrote again of the CEOs desire for BlackRock to play a prominent role in achieving net-zero emissions.

Its not just BlackRock beginning to feel the heat from proactive lawmakers moving to protect their constituents tax dollars from being used against them. All banks that spurn fossil fuels run the risk of alienating their relationships with state governments. In November, Moore led a coalition of 15 states pledging to park $600 billion in taxpayer assets in other institutions than those that bar investment in the industry.

Just as each state represented in this letter is unique in its governing laws and economy, our actions will take different forms, they wrote. However, the overarching objective of our actions will be the same to protect our states economies, jobs, and energy independence from these unwarranted attacks on our critical industries.

While Moores $1.5 billion pulled from BlackRock last month might not be a sizeable figure for a $10 trillion-dollar firm, $600 billion remains nothing to blink at.

Other Republicans leading major oil-producing states, such as state treasurers in Ohio and Oklahoma, have remained apathetic as the movement grows to deter Wall Street financial firms from weaponizing taxpayer dollars against American taxpayers.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Original post:

Lawmakers Are Waking Up To BlackRock's Dual Loyalty, And Taking Action - The Federalist

The only way to understand the actions of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the past two weeks is that he wants the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, which so far have been entirely peaceful, to descend into a violent confrontation between protesters and police.

Everything Trudeau has done, from his initial dismissive remarks about the protesters being a small, fringe minority with unacceptable views, to his ongoing refusal to meet with them, to the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act this week, has served to escalate the situation in Ottawa and increase the likelihood that it ends in some kind of violence.

Consider the draconian measures Trudeaus government is now pursuing. The protests, while certainly inconvenient and even onerous to the residents of Ottawa, are obviously not an existential threat to Canada. They are not even a national emergency according to the Emergencies Acts own definition: an urgent and critical situation that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.

No reasonable person thinks thats what the protests in Ottawa are. The Canadian Civil Liberties Associationhas saidthe federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act, and that invoking it threatens our democracy and our civil liberties. According to some recent polls, a not insignificant number of Canadians agree.

Yet Trudeau is bringing down the full force of the federal government to quash the Freedom Convoy. Under the Emergencies Act, protesters can have their bank accounts frozen, and so can people who simply donate to protesters. Crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers must cease all services to anyone they suspect might be participating in illegal blockades, and report it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Truckers can have their commercial and private drivers licenses revoked, and can lose their insurance and their vehicles.

Even more ominously, Canadian government officials are now warning parents who bring their children to illegal assemblies, or even provide food or fuel to protesters, that they could not only face jail time and steep fines, they could lose custody of their children. On Wednesday, the Childrens Aid Society of Ottawaput out a statementurging parents at the demonstrations to make alternate care arrangements, should they become unable to care for their children following potential police action.

The threat here is obvious: if you protest, well arrest you and take your children away. Trudeau has effectively weaponized Canadas version of child protective services to suppress legitimate political dissent. What do you think is going to happen when the police start trying to remove children from their parents? If it were your child, what would you do?

All of this could come to a head in the coming days. Police in Ottawa have begun handing out notices to protesters that they must leave the area now or face arrest. According tosome reports, if police want to clear the streets of Ottawa, theyre going to have to get it done in the next 48 hours, because thousands more protesters are expected to arrive in the Canadian capital this coming weekend in what could be the largest demonstration yet.

But its unclear how exactly the authorities are going to clear the trucks. Towing these semi-trailers is going to take heavy equipment, and so far local towing companies have refused government requests to tow the Freedom Convoy trucks. The military would be able to move them, and Trudeaus invocation of the Emergencies Act enables the use of the military for such an operation. But that would create a disturbing spectacle at the least, and at worst provoke a confrontation that could turn violent.

If that happens,Trudeau will bear the blame. He has set up a situation where violence, or at least some kind of forcible crackdown by Canadian law enforcement against protesters, is becoming inevitable. Indeed, how else are we to understand Trudeaus statement earlier this week that the protests, which have so far been totally peaceful, are in his judgment no longer non-violent?

At no point, even after drawing widespread criticism for his mishandling of the situation, has Trudeau shown any sign of compromise, or done anything to give the protesters an off-ramp. Even as provincial governments have eased or rescinded Covid mandates and restrictions in the face of sharply declining case numbers and hospitalizations, Trudeau is holding fast. As Eric Kaufmannoted this week in the Telegraph, Trudeaus hypocrisy in these matters is blatant:

Contrast his combative posture towards the truckers with his gentle approach to protesters who would seem to share his philosophy. When Left-wing arsonists burned some 30 Catholic churches over a false claim that mass graves had been discovered near a former residential school for indigenous Canadians, Trudeau called the violence understandable. When indigenous protesters and their allies blocked rail lines and pipelines over a longer period than the trucker convoy, Trudeau patiently called for dialogue and mutual respect.

The Canadian prime ministers reactions to these events tell us that he condones actual political violence and disruptive blockades, as long he agrees with the people who are doing it. The truckers, though, have gotten neither dialogue nor respect from Trudeau and his administration. After all, to Trudeau theyre just a bunch of racists and misogynists with unacceptable views.

On Wednesday, he doubled down on the name-calling, responding to a conservative Jewish MP that Conservative Party members stand with people who wave swastikas, and stand with people who wave the Confederate flag (For that quip, Trudeau earned a rebuke from the speaker of the House of Commons, who reminded him to use words that are not inflammatory.)

At this point, if youre a protester in Canada, or someone who supports the protests, or even someone who thinks the protesters are wrong but the government has gone too far, the message from Trudeau is clear: We will not listen to you, we will not compromise with you, and if you dont comply with our orders, we will ruin you.

That is a recipe for violence, and Trudeau knows it. He wants to make an example out of these truckers because deep down he is an illiberal man with an intolerant worldview.

These protesters have the wrong views, so they dont deserve the dialogue and mutual respect afforded to left-wing protesters. For all his virtue-signaling about diversity, Trudeau doesnt really believe in Canada as a pluralistic society where people of different views and ways of life can live together in peace. He believes in a society where the little people, the people with the wrong views, do as theyre told.

The thing is, most of these protesters have done just that. The vast majority of the truckers are vaccinated. They have complied with some of the most severe Covid mandates and restrictions in the western world for two years now. They did all that was asked of them, and when they finally got fed up with it they organized a peaceful protest.

And for that, Trudeau is trying to crush them.

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

Here is the original post:

Trudeau Doesn't Want To End The Protests Peacefully. He Wants Violence - The Federalist

As Republicans consider who ought to be tasked with responding to President Bidens State of the Union address on March 1, they have the luxury of an obvious, unobjectionable choice whose message speaks to the moment, and to their priorities in 2022: Virginias Lieutenant Governor, Winsome Sears.

The San Francisco school board recalls are just the latest sign that American voters are fed up with the state of things in almost every arena, but particularly when it comes to school closures, mask and vaccine mandates, and the racial politicization of education.

They are tired of a White House and Democratic leadership in Washington which has spent the past year squabbling with its own flanks, left and center, and pretending despite all evidence that it is intolerant intransigent insurgency-minded Republicans who are the problem not inflation.

The White Houses massive miscalculations over the past year are obvious. Instead of taking the win with Operation Warp Speeds vaccines and using their wide availability as a path to get life, schools, and government policy back to normal as soon as possible, they doubled down on performative emergencies as a justification for insane policy packages no one understood. They doubled down on the Sunday show musings of Anthony Fauci, the arbitrary guidance of Rochelle Walensky, and the whiplash recommendations of their supposed experts at an alphabet soup of agencies. They doubled down on bureaucratic mandates and pressure campaigns that ran into the harsh reality of the Constitution.

No one of prominence to this point has been fired, not Fauci, not Walensky, not even the political hack they have running the Department of Health and Human Services. Even as retirements mount and the internal polling indicates Democrats have dramatically undermined their hopes for November, the Ron Klain White House just keeps on chugging toward that iceberg. They cant walk it back, you see theyre too invested in the permanent pandemic now.

The thing about the political sunk cost fallacy is that eventually, it sinks.

And thats exactly what is happening, most prominently in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where Glenn Youngkin, Winsome Sears, and Jason Miyares were swept into office as Terry McAuliffe danced onstage with Randi Weingarten. Republicans won on the basis of all of the above but particularly, they won by prioritizing what the Democrats and their collaborators in teachers unions, school administrators, and corrupt media did and continue to do to Americas children as an issue. It was a multiethnic slate elected by a multiethnic electorate, with a particular outpouring of support from Asian and immigrant communities who reject the lefts woke agenda and want to get their kids learning again.

Sears is an exceptional voice on these issues. She also is a model for a movement, not just confined to Republican circles, that will stand up directly against false accusations of racism and bigotry in American life. Instead of cowering and begging forgiveness, we ought to reject the false premise of racism, and have the courage to stand up against it, even when it is relentlessly repeated by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.

(Theyll even do it with progressives in San Francisco just look at those evil Asian immigrants who dont care about racial injustice!)

In advancing this argument courageously, despite all the additional viciousness of the attacks one must face as a woman who is strongly conservative, Sears serves as a model of fortitude others should follow. Plus, she does it with style.

Responses to the State of the Union address are typically forgettable, and occasionally only remembered for infamous reasons. But one exception is that of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2010. He spoke to the chamber of the Virginia House of Delegates, benefitting from an active audience and a clear contrast to President Obamas agenda, representing a precursor to the Tea Party wave that came to Washington in 2010.

Theres one more reason that this years response should be Sears: it would serve as an implicit acknowledgment that Republicans arent going to take their eye off the ball for the 2022 midterms by getting sucked into 2024 too early. Much as Ron DeSantis is the belle of the ball at the moment, there are more of State of the Unions (probably from Joe Biden) that hell have the opportunity to respond to in due course.

The Democrat-complicit media acknowledges his existence, and works on a daily basis to tear him down. But when it comes to Winsome Sears? Theyd rather pretend she, and Americans like her, dont exist at all.

Dont let them.

See the rest here:

GOP Should Ask Winsome Sears To Respond To The State Of The Union - The Federalist