Category Archives: Federalist

While attending the recent opening of Holbein: Capturing Character, the new exhibition dedicated to the German Renaissance master Hans Holbein the Younger (c. 1497-1543) that just opened at the Morgan Library and Museum in New York, I observed a visitor asking the security guards, Where are the pictures of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell?

This was a fair question since Holbein, although born in Augsburg and for many years a citizen of Basel, is most famous for the portraits he executed in London, where he eventually became Kings Painter to Henry VIII (1491-1547). If you imagine Tudor England in your minds eye, chances are the way you envision its people stems directly from the work of this artist.

Striking up a conversation with the questioner, a man of somewhat Henrician proportions himself, I learned that he had driven all the way up from southern New Jersey that morning to see the show before having lunch with old school friends. He found it odd that not only were there no images of the Tudors in the exhibition, but Holbeins famous 1527 portrait of St. Thomas More (1478-1535) was in the show, while his 1530s portrait of Mores rival Thomas Cromwell (c. 1485-1540) was notyet both paintings reside at the Frick Collection, just some blocks away up Madison Avenue.

Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98 1543)Sir Thomas More.1527, Oil on panel. 29 1/2 x 23 3/4 in. (74.9 x 60.3 cm)The Frick Collection, New York, 1912.1.77Photo: Michael Bodycomb

While these were perfectly valid observations, this is not a show about creating artistic propaganda on behalf of a ruling family, as with the Medici portraits at the Met last year. Rather, this exhibition attempts to give the visitor a broad overview of the type of work Holbein created throughout his career.

To that end, the shows organizers have put together the largest assemblage of Holbeins work ever mounted in the United States. Its clear from the catalog, however, that this isnt fully the show the organizers had planned.

Given the rare, sometimes delicate state of surviving Holbeins, whose ability to travel is now further impinged by the vagaries of those still preoccupied with Covid, putting this show together outside of the United Kingdom or Europe was always going to be difficult. Simply too few pieces by Holbein reside in the United States.

For example, there are perhaps 100 drawings by Holbein left in existence, and the only one that resides in the United States is at the Getty Museum, where the show ran prior to coming to New York. Meanwhile, the queen owns around 80 Holbein drawings and generously lent several to the exhibition. As a result, the catalog is more than just an afterthought or a nice souvenir: its a kind of might-have-been-but-for. Its also a useful way to get to know Holbein the artist, without getting overly distracted by the Tudors scandals.

The closest we get in the exhibition to a member of the Tudor dynasty, albeit by marriage, is a circa 1538-42 drawing of William Parr, marquess of Northampton (1513-1571), the younger brother of Henry VIIIs sixth and surviving wife, Catherine Parr (1512-1548). The marquess was known for being a snappy dresser, a fact borne out in Holbeins drawing.

Parr sat for his session with Holbein in a jaunty, feathered hat covered with jewels, and a fur-lined, velvet and satin gown, a garment that in real life was purple and white striped. We know this because here, as in many of his portrait drawings, Holbein made notes to himself about the colors he would need to use in completing a subsequent painting of his subject.

For sheer, unabashed dandyism, the star of the entire show is unquestionably Holbeins striking roundel portrait of Simon George of Cornwall, painted circa 1535-40. I was completely unfamiliar with this piece, partly because no one at present knows very much about the sitter, and the picture resides in the Stdel Museum in Frankfurt, Germany, a city Ive never visited.

Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98 1543)Simon George, ca. 1535 40.Mixed technique on panel. 12 3/16 in. (31 cm)Stdel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, 1065. Photo: Stdel Museum

Speculation says George may have been a poet, or the painting may have been executed as an engagement gift. Visitors to the show will be fortunate enough to see the change in Holbeins subject between the drawing and painting phases, since by the time his portrait was painted, George had let his previously trim beard grow to full hipster length.

As in Holbeins drawing of Parr, George sports a similarly rakish, feathered hat covered in gold and jewels. He wears a white undertunic with black vines embroidered around the collar, under a coral pink jerkin embroidered in gold. Over this, we see a cream-colored tunic with thin blue stripes along the seams, and over this, he wears what can best be described as a black leather puffer jacket.

Its a bold, edgy look for someone who was neither royal nor, so far as we know, an aristocrat. If this was indeed a present to Georges future bride, we have to assume that she was just as fashion-forward as he was, in order to catch the eye of this peacock.

Not all of the men in the show were as flashy. Paintings depicting members of the German merchant community in London, for example, show serious, bearded men dressed in the kind of sober clothing that was expected of and indeed legislatively mandated of the mercantile class, who were not permitted to dress in finery in public.

Distinguished from one another primarily by their features and expressions, these werent the sorts of fellows to pick up a lute and sing love songs written by the king or make merry at a hunting party. Yet without them and others like them, London would never have become a center for world trade.

On the whole, the ladies of the exhibition do not fare as well as the men; indeed, some of them appear quite dour. The completed 1527 portrait of Mary, Lady Guildford from the St. Louis Art Museum showcases a great deal of Renaissance finery and symbolism.

Yet its just not as visually appealing as the original, more mischievously flirtatious image of Lady Guildford that Holbein drew of her from life, and which is now in the Kunstmuseum Basel. Its a pity this drawing could not travel to New York for the exhibition, as contrasting two images of the same lady in the same attire side-by-side, but in different poses and moods, would have been a great opportunity.

That said, I was very pleased to see the image of one lady Im familiar with who was able to come to New York from London, and who is usually referred to as A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling (c. 1526-28). I havent seen this picture in person for many years.

Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98 1543)A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling (AnneLovell?)ca. 1526 28. Oil on panel29 3/4 23 1/6 4 1/16 in. (75.5 58.5 10.3 cm)National Gallery, London, NG6540 The National Gallery, London.

As I suspect is the case for most viewers, Ive always been charmed by the pet red squirrel the sitter holds in her lap. Both it and the starling are probably a reference to the sitters coat of arms and family seat, so that increasingly scholars are persuaded she may well be Lady Anne Lovell, whose husband Sir Francis Lovell was a close companion and quasi-bodyguard of Henry VIII.

On this viewing, I was struck for the first time by the wonderful detail Holbein works into his depiction of the ladys cap, which appears to be made of warm, luxurious white fur. Notice how, with subtle variations in shading, Holbein captures the effect of the channeled stitching that runs from the front to the back of the hat. Holbeins mastery of representing the tactile in two dimensions is such that you can easily imagine just what that would feel like if you were to run your fingers along those indentationsnot while Anne was wearing it, of course.

Perhaps another exception should be made for the lovely circa 1535-40 portrait of an unidentified young woman, believed to be a member of the Cromwell family, lent by the Toledo Museum of Art. While the young lady is elegantly dressed and charmingly demure, the piece is particularly interesting in the context of the exhibition because it hangs next to a sheet of jewelry designed by Holbein.

One of these designs is for the large gold medallion on the front of the sitters gown. The jewel depicts the biblical story of an angel leading Lot and his family away from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and incorporates a rectangular gem in the center. This stone symbolizes Lots wife who, as described in Genesis 19:26, was turned into a pillar of salt. To decipher the symbolism of why one would want to wear such a bauble, youll have to do a bit of reading and thinking.

More importantly, as this juxtaposition of portrait and jewel in the exhibition demonstrates, Holbein was not only a master painter but also an extraordinarily gifted designer. From luxury items such as gold-encrusted hat badges and solid silver fountains to illuminated capital letters, book illustrations, to ephemeral party decorations, Holbein did not limit himself to working in only one or two creative genres.

The show provides a wide selection of examples of artistic productions in which Holbein was involved, ranging from one-off precious objects commissioned by courtiers as gifts for the king, to mass-produced, woodcut prints illustrating the medieval fascination with death.

The section on the Dance of Death is unique to the Morgan version of the show, and sets a very different tone to the explorations of humanism, courtly life, and fashion that otherwise predominate in the exhibition. The artistic exploration of mans ultimate fate, from an age when the acceptance of mortality was not intentionally absented from the public square as it is at present, may strike the contemporary viewer as macabre. Yet Holbein knew well how to make the most of widely disseminated, popular images on this subject, using the printing press.

From the early, so-called Death Alphabet printed after Holbeins designs in 1523 to later woodblock prints from 1538 in which Holbein shows how death comes for everyone regardless of station, from pope to nun, duchess to plowman, Holbein never ran away from death artistically. With Europe in a near-constant state of war during the 16th century, the spread of poorly understood infectious diseases through urban environments, and Holbein having to work under the reign of a deranged megalomaniac, the possibility of an unexpected death was always around the corner, at all levels of society. In the end, death came all too early for Holbein himself, for he died in London at about the age of 45, probably of the plague.

Hans Ltzelburger (1495? 1526), after designsby Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98 1543)Death and the Plowmanca. 1526. Woodcut. 2 9/16 x 1 15/16 in. (6.5 x 4.9 cm)The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 19.57.37 The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY

During the height of his career and fame in England, Holbein somehow managed to survive and thrive under the despotism of Henry VIII. Unlike More, Cromwell, and others who had also been his artistic patrons, Holbein continued to be in demand right up until he died.

While this first major American exhibition to examine the breadth of Holbeins artistic output is not what it might have been had it been put on before 2020, its a long-overdue assessment on these shores of an artist whose inventiveness, observation, and technical skill not only defined how we all imagine the Tudor age, but whose work continues to delight and dazzle the eye.

Holbein: Capturing Character is at the Morgan Library and Museum in New York through May 15, 2022.

View original post here:

Henry VIII's Painter Gets His Biggest Show Ever In The United States - The Federalist

Itis appropriate that we celebrate George Washingtons birthday and Abraham Lincolns birthday together. Washington was the founder of our nation and Lincoln was its savior. Washingtons task was completed with the winning of the American Revolution and the installation of our government, but Lincolns taskof saving the union,despite its successful conclusion at, is one that is really never-ending if we would retain ourdemocracy.

Right now there is renewed danger to our nation: the discrediting of our election process.This is weakening faith in our democratic system and fostering bitter division in our society. I believe we can look to Lincoln for inspiration in these trying and divisive times.

In 1863 at the site of the Civil War battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said, Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation ... now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.In so saying, he indicated that our democracy was being tested and implying that to endure we would have to withstand continued testing in the future.He referred to our nation as an on-going experiment in self-government.

Those of us who have been raised in the United States and have attended elementary and secondary schools here, have been inculcated in the history and the customs of our nation.In the process, by learning to salute the flag, singing the national anthem, etc., I believe the feeling has become ingrained in us that our nation is strong, steadfast and perpetual.

But history, as our founding fathers noted, casts doubt on the likely success of democracies.James Madison, the major contributor to the writing of our Constitution, spoke of the fragility of democracies.In the Federalist Papers he pointed out that the famous republics of Greece and Rome had eventually resulted in anarchy.Both had been overthrown by military leaders: Athens by Alexander the Great and his successors and Rome by Julius Caesar.

Lincoln presided over a rebellion which put the existence of our nation in its greatest peril: the Civil War.Slavery and its possible extension were the major causesof the war.Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, tried to prevent the war by attempting to allay the fears of the southern states, saying he would not interfere with slavery where it existed.This offer wasrejectedand the war came on.

After a year of bloody fighting, the abolitionist editor, Horace Greeley, criticized Lincoln for not yet having freed the slaves.Lincoln responded, I would save the union.My paramountobject is to save the union and not either to save or destroy slavery.He hated slavery, but, first things first.He noted that the nation must be saved to enable it to eliminate slavery by amending the Constitution, and further, to quote the Constitution, to bring the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

But isnt the foundation of our nation being severely tested at this time?Free and fair elections and the acceptance of their results are the underpinnings of our democracy. Even now, fifteen months after the presidential election, a significant portion of American citizens appearsto believe that the results of the election were fraudulent; their doubts and fears must be dispelled.How can this be done?For openers, it is imperative that we realize that perpetuating our democratic republicshould be ouroverwhelming concern, so we must be civil to each other to accomplish this goal.

In these times of serious division in which friends have become seeming enemies and even relatives have become uncomfortable with each other, I believe the words of Lincoln would be helpful.He used them to try to reconcile north and south, and we can take them to heart in thoughtfully applying them tothose associates with whom we may differ:We are not enemies, but friends.We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not beak our bonds of affection.This spirit will not only benefit our personal relationships, it will be vital to restore the national solidarity.

Ed Jones is a member of the Thousand Oaks City Council.

Read this article:

Guest column: Look to Lincoln for inspiration in divisive times - VC Star

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is seeking to block federally funded housing organizations from incentivizing child trafficking promoted by President Joe Bidens border crisis by stripping their licenses to operate.

The Republican first directed the Florida Department of Children and Families to look into the situation in September, followed by an emergency rule in December that halted issuing and renewing the licenses of organizations that accepted federal money to house unaccompanied migrant children. In September 2021 alone, border officials encountered 14,358alien minors along the Southern U.S. border.

It wasnt until last week that the DCF released a permanent rule proposal solidifying the states intent to cut off licensing for organizations harboring unaccompanied alien children at the request of the federal government. While the state will continue to participate in refugee resettlement programs with federal agencies, DCF Secretary Shevaun Harris confirmed that Florida will no longer be complicit in Bidens border crisis which funnels more than $66 million to childcare and child-placing agencies in the Sunshine State.

As border apprehensions reach record-breaking highs nearly every month, the Biden administration has been conducting covert ghost flights to ship and resettle illegal aliens including minors across the country with little to no transparency or vetting. As a result, federal officials have lost track of almost 40 percent of migrant children who were released from border officials custody between January and May of last year.

DeSantis, however, made it clear that he doesnt want Florida involved with the federal governments attempts to incentivize illicit practices at the Southern border, including human smuggling, which is often facilitated by drug traffickers and criminal gangs.

The current [unaccompanied alien children] process smuggles in illegal immigrants from many different countries with no vetting, no transparency, and no consideration for child and public safety, DeSantis explained last week.

During an event with Cuban Americans who were ushered into Florida under Operation Pedro Pan, a pre-planned mission in the early 1960s designed to rescue unaccompanied minorsfrom the communist regime in Cuba and bring them to the U.S., DeSantis explained that the Biden administration is endangering migrant children by spreading them across the country.

I just think theres a lot of bad analogies that get made in modern political discourse. But to equate whats going on with the Southern border with mass trafficking of humans, illegal entry, drugs, all this other stuff with operation Pedro Pan, quite frankly, is disgusting. Its wrong. It is not even close to the same thing, DeSantis said.

Like many times before, corporate media and leftist activists quickly attacked the Republican based on lies. Among those opposed to the new rule is Catholic Archbishop Thomas Wenski of the Archdiocese of Miami, who accused DeSantis of participating in political theater and lied about the governors comments.

At Governor DeSantis Monday meeting with a few former Pedro Pan kids in Miamis Museum of the Cuban Diaspora, he described any comparison of unaccompanied minors from Cuba in the early 60s with those from Central America today as disgusting,' Wenski falsely claimed. This was a new low in the zero-sum politics of our divisive times. Children are children and no child should be deemed disgusting especially by a public servant.

DeSantis, a father to three kids, never said children are disgusting but Wenskis comments fit the Democrat narrative too well for pro-illegal immigration activists to pass up.

TheAmerican Business Immigration Coalition Action quickly sprung to action and released a six-figure buy radio advertisement using Wenskis false claims to smear DeSantis.

Disgusting is that Gov. DeSantis is trying to benefit himself politically by attacking innocent immigrant children who are only seeking refuge and to top it off, he did it in Miami, Floridas own Ellis Island, an English translation of the ad script states.

One thing the archbishop didnt mention in his now-prolific falsehood about DeSantis was that the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, which he presides over, received millions of dollars from the Biden administration to harbor child migrants.

Financial documents obtained by The Federalist via an open records request indicate that in 2021 alone, CCAM raked in $10,048,439 from the federal government to serve 352 unaccompanied alien children in the state of Florida more than $28,500 per child.

The reliance on federal funding for cooperation with illegal activity worries some Catholic leaders that the Catholic church is replacing religion with profitable political positions.

As Federalist Senior Editor and devout Catholic Chris Bedford recently wrote:

But more than any other religious group, it is Americas Catholic bishops who lend moral support and cover to the current border situation, and who thunder against any change in the status quo that might possibly mean fewer illegal immigrants and fewer victimized children in tents run by criminal gangs just praying to God to protect them and their mothers.

This is a distinction with meaning: Its important to separate guilt from responsibility, just as its crucial for us to understand what our duty as faithful Catholics is to our country and her people, to our just laws and our future, to our brothers and sisters around the world who are suffering and in distress, and to our salvation.

Despite opposition from some Catholic leaders who profit off of Bidens lucrative border crisis, the new rule proposed by DeSantis is expected to move forward without issue and stop Florida-based organizations from participating in a system that aids and abets the smuggling of minors.

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.

Follow this link:

DeSantis Blocks Biden Admin's International Child-Trafficking Scheme In Florida - The Federalist

Hubris invites nemesis, which explains a lot about fights within the conservative movement. Or as National Reviews Michael Brendan Dougherty recently put it, Intra-conservative discourse is mostly just spiking the football before youve reached midfield.

A little success often swells heads, and this arrogance sabotages future efforts. Unfortunately, the so-called New Rightled by writers and public intellectuals such as Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen, and consisting of a loose confederation of post-liberals, national conservatives, and othersis at risk of this.

The New Right has energy, ideas (many of them good) and momentum, but its practical political influence is still minor. It will be handicapped if its boosters indulge in hubris and ingratitude. Unfortunately, some of them are.

For example, Josh Hammer of Newsweek recently rhetorically asked, What exactly can modern Fusionism claim to have successfully conserved? This disdain for his conservative forebearers may be cathartic for Hammer, but it is not persuasive. The fusionist coalitionthe alliance between social conservatives, free marketers, and cold warriorshad its failures, but it also conserved quite a lot.

The Soviet Union is on the ash heap of history, which is kind of a big deal. The collapse of the Iron Curtain also restored national sovereignty to many peoples, including the Poles and the Hungarians, whose governments are much admired by the New Right.

Domestically, Second Amendment rights are far more robust and secure. Perhaps relatedly, crime rates dropped for several decades, with major cities becoming livable again. Taxes were lowered and welfare was reformed. The Equal Rights Amendment is dead.

Even in areas where conservatives now feel besieged, there have been successes. Religious freedom advocates have won substantial victories in court, including the Zelman decision and the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in response to the Smith decision, which was the late Justice Antonin Scalias greatest mistake) is still the law, though it is under sustained assault from the left.

On marriage, the fusionist coalition won a great many victories through the democratic process, from the Bill Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act to Californias Prop 8 in 2008. It was the federal courts, and ultimately Justice Anthony Kennedy, that redefined marriage, not the people.

As this shows, the judiciary has been a persistent problem for conservatives, but it is not obvious the results would have been different if, instead of originalism, the conservative legal establishment had been pushing Hammers common good originalism or Adrian Vermeules common good constitutionalism. If Roe v. Wade is overturned this summer in Dobbs, it will be due to Federalist Society originalist judges and decades of work by pro-lifers largely working within the fusionist framework.

So yes, fusionism conserved a lot. Nor are its defeats necessarily discrediting, for being right does not guarantee victory.

Nonetheless, there are now good reasons to rethink the fusionist coalition, as old alliances and positions may no longer make sense with the Cold War long over and Big Business and Wall Street going woke. This does not mean that fusionism was nothing but folly and failure.

There are also, of course, just and reasonable criticisms of how the conservative establishment, let alone the GOP, has acted over the years. In many cases they have prioritized donor interests and issues over those of voters.

The calcification colorfully described as Zombie Reaganism had grown worse as GOP candidates and establishment conservatives failed to adapt to new challenges. This created a political opening for Donald Trump, and an intellectual opportunity for the New Right and others to rethink conservatism in beneficial ways.

But that chance could easily be squandered through arrogance, insolence, and ingratitude. After all, other factions on the right have fallen from greater heights of influence than the New Right has yet scaled.

For example, when the neoconservatives were riding high, they tried to smear those on the right with less enthusiasm for foreign intervention as unpatriotic conservatives who have finished by hating their country. Today, although their influence lingers in the GOP, many of the leading neocons, including the one who wrote those words, are Democratic shills despised by the Republican voters they once led.

This example also illustrates how events often do as much as ideas to elevate, or exile, a faction. The 9/11 attacks gave the neoconservatives an opportunity to lead, and the 2008 financial crisis, as much as the drag of the Iraq War, ensured the end of their time in office.

Events often overtake ideas, for good or ill. Samuel Goldman argues this could pose trouble for the New Right. He writes that, as the pandemic has continued, opposition to restrictions on personal conduct, suspicion of expert authority, and free speech for controversial opinions have become dominant themes in center-right argument and activism.

This is an obvious challenge to managerial left-liberalism, but Goldman suggests it also poses a problem for the New Right, which is overtly hostile to libertarian ideas and often favorable toward government intervention. This analysis is too simple.

It is not just that American folk libertarian attitudes are not interchangeable with libertarian ideology, but also that many of the New Rights leaders have joined the resistance to continued heavy-handed pandemic management. For instance, although Vermeule has endorsed vaccine mandates, writers such as Hammer and Ahmari have been very critical of them, and they are unlikely to be overtaken and undone by a pandemic-inspired libertarian moment.

But Goldman does direct us toward a genuine difficulty that the New Right must address, which is how it can justify being given power. Promising effective big government conservatism is logically compatible with critiquing big government liberalism. But why should the rest of us trust the advocates for big government conservatism, such as Vermeules plans to, instead of trimming the administrative state, use it to advance conservative, or at least Catholic, ends?

There are obvious difficulties, such as how the would-be managers of the New Right would staff the permanent bureaucracy when it and the institutions that train and accredit people to work in it are overwhelmingly held by the left. And there are the persistent problems caused by human fallenness, fallibility, and finitude.

These should not paralyze us from action, but, with a humble awareness of our limitations, they should give us pause. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a well-worn proverb for good reason.

It is not only libertarian ideology that can make people skeptical of expansive government power; experience and humility can have the same effect. Unfortunately, some of the leading figures of the New Right seems to have gotten cocky after a taste of success, and they retain an appetite for petty Twitter feuds.

They should instead remember the virtue of humility, both personally and ideologically. A conservative who disrespects everyone who came before him is doing it wrong.

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

More:

Why The New Right Needs To Ditch Its Bitterness Against The Old Right - The Federalist

WASHINGTON, D.C. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowsers Monday morning turnaround on the citys Covid lockdown policies was sudden and unexpected.

In its haste and in who it spared, and who it did not the decree also served to expose the money-mired confluence of politics, power, and American Covid policy.

The announcement followed public complaints from private business owners facing a third year of ruin and despair, sparing them. It came on the eve of the policies hardest impact on key D.C. constituents, sparing them as well.

Most tellingly, however, it failed to spare the citys schoolchildren. For them, there is no lobby; and so for them, there is no respite.

The mayors decision to end vaccination requirements and sunset certain mask demands came one week after influential D.C. restauranteur Dan Simons publicly complained on Twitter that the federal city had become an unwelcoming place, where politics overruled a tolerance for those Americans who disagreed on vaccine mandates. The climate, he said, was keeping school children from learning important history here and driving business to Maryland and Virginia.

Restaurant business in the District is down an estimated 59 percent since January 2019, and men like Simons felt compelled to take a stand for their city. In standing up (if even for a moment), hed joined Noe Landini, managing director and CEO of REX Management, which also owns restaurants and bars across DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

Landini an outspoken critic of arbitrary Covid restrictions from the very beginning had publicly promised not to discriminate against D.C. customers based on their vaccination status, but was forced to comply by the citys promise of harsh penalties for resistance. His decision to back down spared his businesses the wrath of the city government.

Simons, whose partnership owns four restaurants in D.C., two in Virginia, and one each in Maryland and Pennsylvania, was similarly spared. After an unhinged and barely factual backlash from delirious Twitter users, Simons deleted his tweets. But while he and Landini were given some measure of mercy, one D.C. restaurant was in the process of losing its business.

That business was burger-and-beer restaurant Big Board, which had become a cause clbre after refusing to abide by either mask or vaccine mandates. In the two weeks since its stand, its been forcibly closed by the D.C. government.

In announcing Big Boards indefinite suspension of service on Thursday, the citys alcohol enforcement board claimed their continued operation places the community at risk and cannot be allowed a difficult claim by any measure.

In an ironic twist, the citys decision to close Big Board was posted Monday the same day the sunset of restaurant rules was announced by the mayor. By the letter of the announcement, they might be allowed to reopen when the Covid orders sunset in two more weeks plus a month of unemployment, and sans a month of much-needed business.

The vaccine mandate itself had been in effect one month and had been instated when citywide cases were already in decline. While popular with the white liberals who are often the shrillest voice in the citys politics, bans on unvaccinated customers hit black voters hardest.

Feb. 14 the day the order was repealed on a single days notice is the day before the enforcement of two vaccination shots went into effect. This shift would have affected the citys black residents far more than its white residents, barring more than 55 percent of them from indoor dining, swimming, exercise, and entertainment.

While white liberals may hold the megaphone in D.C., black voters make up more than 45 percent of the population and are a powerful voting bloc. This discrimination against black business, combined with rising violent crime, had pushed Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to join a rising chorus of lawmakers threatening to replace the federal districts mayor with congressional control when they come into power (likely in one year).

Even beyond self-preservation, the mayors sudden decision also fit into the national political scene, coming just a week after Democratic governors across the country began to retreat from years of restrictions, claiming victory over Covid (although the statistics show it was a far more politically informed decision than a medically informed one). Politically charged science is grand and all, but in the fight between the two: politics ber alles.

While both voters and businesses have seemingly been heard loud and clear, one group remains noticeably absent from any sight of relief: children.

On March 1, the mayors order reads, masks STILL will be required at schools.

The meaning is clear: While one of the first things the world learned about Covid was that its effect on children is minimal and despite years of evidence that masking is detrimental to both their learning and social development the mandates remain.

Social media is replete with videos and images of abuse, tears, and insanity in pursuit of the policy, but still two whole years in teachers unions demand it.

While in nearby Virginia parents formed a political bloc to defeat the teachers unions governor, and in faraway San Francisco, parents have powered a recall of union allies on the city school board, by and large, school children dont have an organized voice in American politics.

Teachers do, of course: Theyre vested, entrenched, and in control, claiming to represent the interests of school districts while in reality, organizing against the parents who resist them and the children theyre entrusted with.

Its a harsh reality; one of the many money-mired confluences of politics and power that American Covid policy has laid bare. Children have no organized representation in American politics, and because of this, have suffered the most.

There are two more realities as well, however.

First, parents can change this; and when they do, not even the howls of the unions and their allies can stop them.

Second: They have no choice; our school children need them.

Original post:

DC's Mandates Repeal Shows Who's In Charge Of Covid Rules -- And Isn't - The Federalist

If you thought the epic works of J.R.R. Tolkien could survive adaptation into a billion-dollar TV series by Amazon without being saddled with the dreary ideology of corporate wokeness, or without being marred by executives and show-runners who think they can improve on Tolkiens vast mythopoeia, you were wrong.

So was the Tolkien estate, which in 2017 sold the rights to the appendices in The Lord of the Rings to Amazon for a reported $250 million. Those appendices outline the Second Age of Middle Earth, thousands of years before the events in the acclaimed Lord of the Rings trilogy, and are supposed to be the source material for this new show, which Amazon is calling, The Rings of Power.

But from what little we know about the series, which premieres this fall, it appears Amazon is planning to stray far from its source material. The shows firstteaser traileraired Sunday during the Super Bowl just days after Vanity Fairran an exclusive first lookfeaturing promo photos of some of the main characters.

The trailer, photos, and article all suggest The Rings of Power will deviate drastically from Tolkiens appendices, not only by introducing a racially diverse cast of characters that makes no sense in Tolkiens mythology, but also by compressing thousands of years of Middle Earth history into a few truncated storylines, creating completely new characters, and introducing hobbits (nonsensically calling them harfoots, one of three breeds of hobbits) eons before any hobbits migrated over the Misty Mountains into Arnor.

Its easy to dismiss these complaints as so much nit-picking from Tolkien nerds, and to some extent maybe it is. But this will be the most expensive TV series ever produced, adapted from the most celebrated work of fantasy literature ever published, a work beloved by millions of people all over the world that has no equal in the English language. What happens with this series isnt some trifling thing, its a major cultural event that deserves serious consideration, whatever one thinks of Tolkiens novels or Peter Jacksons film adaptations of them.

So when Amazons Lindsey Weber, executive producer of the series, tells Vanity Fair, It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkiens work would reflect what the world actually looks like, in reference to casting a black elf and a black dwarven princess (without a beard!) and a black hobbit, because Tolkien is for everyone, it should set off alarm bells.

Why doesnt a racially diverse cast of characters make sense in Tolkiens mythology? Because this isnt Games of Thrones or the The Wheel of Time or some other throwaway fantasy series that can easily be adjusted to reflect our myopic modern obsessions about race and representation. This is Lord of the Rings, a prehistoric fantasy epic whose purpose, as Tolkien himselfexplained in some detail, was to provide a legendarium for Britain, which Tolkien felt had no stories of its own, at least not like the legends of other lands: There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff.

To do this, Tolkien worked for decades to create a fully realized lore of Middle Earth languages, genealogies, histories, poetry, maps, detailed geographies. But it was the lore of a particular place: the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East.

Hence it should go without saying (although it clearly doesnt) that most of the characters in Tolkiens legendarium are white. They are, of course, all of variousraces, but here the races are divided between elves, men, dwarves, hobbits, and so on. It makes as much sense to cast black elves and dwarves for a TV adaptation of Tolkiens work as it would to cast Native Americans for an adaptation of Homers Odyssey or Asians for Virgils Aeneid. You could do that, but youd end up with a tale so far removed from its origins that it has become something else entirely.

And that appears to be what Amazon is doing here not just because it decided to graft 21st-century notions of racial diversity onto Tolkiens prehistoric mythology, but because it has also decided to collapse thousands of years of that mythology for the sake of convenience. As showrunner J.D. Payne told Vanity Fair, If you are true to the exact letter of the law, you are going to be telling a story in which your human characters are dying off every season because youre jumping 200 years in time, and then youre not meeting really big, important canon characters until season four. Look, there might be some fans who want us to do a documentary of Middle-earth, but were going to tell one story that unites all these things.

Well, sorry pal, but you cant sucessfully tell one story that unites all these things unless you have some human characters die off every season while your elves live on. Why? Because, like most of the characters being white,thats how Tolkien wrote it. No one ever said it would be easy to adapt Tolkiens tales of the Second Age into an easily consumable streaming series, or that it would be amenable to woke notions of racial equity, but thats what Amazon signed up for.

The truncated timeline is in some ways worse than the racial diversity stuff. Instead of narrowing the scope of the series and focusing on only a handful of characters, Payne and his fellow showrunner Patrick McKay are apparently going to attempt what Tolkien did not, and knit the appendices into a single, straightforward tale. Are they up for it? Do they know Tolkiens work well enough to pull it off? The Vanity Fair piece goes out of its way to assure readers that Payne and McKay are, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, huge Tolkien fans, and agonizingly aware of the pressure.

Yet the article tells us about a canny young elven architect and politician named Elrond (Robert Aramayo) who will rise to prominence in the mystical capital of Lindon. Clearly, the writers of the Vanity Fair piece, Anthony Breznican and Joanna Robinson, are getting this description from Amazon, or the shows Tolkien scholars, or maybe even from Payne and McKay. If so, thats another alarm bell. Elrond is the son of Erendil and Elwing, the grandson of Dior, Thingols heir, and the great-grandson of Beren and Lthien. He didnt rise to prominence through his canny political machinations, he was born prominent. Hes Elrond. Are you kidding me?

And why would Paynesay viewers wouldnt be introduced to major characters until season four if they told the story the way Tolkien intended? What about all the elves that remained after the First Age, whose deeds figure prominently in the events of the Second Age?You know,Galadriel, or Celebrimbor, or Gil-Galad, or Crdan the Shipwright.

Or how about telling us the stories of Amroth and Nimrodel, or the rise of Thranduil (the father of Legolas) as the king of the Silvan Elves, or Elrond founding Rivendell, or the story of the Ents search for the Entwives? You know, all the stories that are only ever hinted at in Tolkiens LOTR trilogy, but which would be awesome to see fleshed out in more detail on screen if they were told by someone who actually knew and loved that history.

And why cant Elros, Elronds brother, be a main character? Do Payne and McKay think the creation of Nmenor isnt enough fodder for an entire season of its own?Also, Elros lived to be 500 years old, so Paynes comment about human characters dying off because you jump 200 years ahead is bunk even if it were to only apply to the race of men.

If none of these names or events mean anything to you, thats fine. But Payne and McKay and Amazons PR shop for The Rings of Power should know all about them, and they should know better than to let a Vanity Fair puff piece make it seem like the people creating this show have no idea what theyre talking about.

Indeed, with every new image and article and teaser we get about this series, the less it seems like a faithful adaptation of Tolkiens work than a generic comic-book fantasy epic with a Lord of the Rings veneer slapped over it. Amazon executives clearly had their own story in mind and just pulled names from Tolkiens legendarium like they were pulling names out of a magical profit-making hat.Ooh, people know the name Galadriel lets have a plucky warrior lady character and name her that! Isildur whos that again?Oh yeah, lets make him asailor, and everyone will be interested because they vaguely remember something from the prologue of the Peter Jackson films about Isildur cutting the One Ring from Saurons hand!

Maybe thats what Amazon wants and thanks to Bezos deep pockets the company can afford to pay a billion dollars to get it. But thats not what the source material deserves, and every Tolkien fan in the world knows it. What a waste.

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.

See original here:

Amazon's 'Lord Of The Rings' Has Already Betrayed Tolkien's Vision - The Federalist

When Canadian truckers first signaled their intent to assemble a Freedom Convoy protesting their governments draconian Covid-19 policies, including vaccine mandates and passports, Prime Minister Justin Trudeaublew them off as a fringe minority.

Just this week, however, Trudeau invoked for the first time ever the Emergencies Act, the successor law to the War Measures Act, in order to mobilize the Canadian military to crush the Freedom Convoy and forcibly clear the truckers and their rigs from the streets of Ottawa. Somehow, this fringe minority has prompted the most authoritarian response from a Canadian government since Trudeaus father, Pierre Trudeau, deployed soldiers in the October Crisis of 1970 to quell an actual separatist movement, theFront de libration du Qubec(FLQ), after it kidnapped the deputy premier of Quebec and a British diplomat.

The October Crisis marked the first time the War Measures Act had ever been invoked in peacetime. But Pierre Trudeau was dealing with actual terrorists (the FLQ had carried out a years-long bombing campaign before the kidnapping, and ended up murdering the deputy premier, Pierre Laporte). His son is dealing with a peaceful, if inconvenient, protest of government policies. Yet here we are, with the younger Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time, and taking the remarkable step of treating peaceful protesters as domestic terrorists.

It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcementsability to effectively enforcethe law, Trudeau said ata news conference Monday afternoon. It is no longer a lawful protest at a disagreement over government policy. It is now an illegal occupation. Its time for people to go home.

Days after the Trudeau administration backed GoFundMes attempt to deplatform the truckers fundraising campaign, Trudeaus Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the Canadian government would expand its terrorist financing rules to target crowdfunding sites like the convoys new platform GiveSendGo.

The illegal blockades have highlighted the fact that crowdfunding platforms, and some of the payment service providers they use, are not fully captured under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, she said. Weare making these changes because we know that these platforms are being used to support illegal blockades and illegal activity which is damaging the Canadian economy.

Trudeaus decision to use the Emergencies Act against Canadian citizens who have already been banned from supporting truckers and threatened with fines and prison time is unprecedented. Historically, the War Measures Act has only been invoked during the two world wars and again in 1970. Now, Trudeau is mobilizing the Canadian military and intelligence agencies against the truckers because he doesnt like their views.

Lets be clear: Trudeau and his administration arent targeting the truckers because they are violent. Even the prime minister admitted that his issue with the thousands of protesters is that they hold unacceptable views.

The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa, who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians, Trudeau said during a press conference in January.

Even then, Trudeau knew the truckers true intentions were peaceful, but he didnt lend them a listening ear. Instead, when the Freedom Convoy arrived at his doorstep, the prime minister fled his Ottowa residence and hid in an undisclosed location. Then he smeared the movement on Twitter and accused the Freedom Convoy of harboring racist vandals.

Its natural to wonder if this weeks-long tension between the Canadian government and Freedom Convoy could have been peacefully resolved if Trudeau had engaged the truckers and offered them an off-ramp. Instead, Trudeau and his team are taking notes from the Democrats Jan. 6 committee in the House by cutting off financial pipelines to people they deem domestic terrorists. In return, the Biden administration is pressuring the Trudeau government to crack down even harder on what the corporate media have labeled a nationwide insurrection.

The truckers and other Canadians who have stuck it out in Ottawa want freedom, and they risked their trucks, gasoline, warmth, finances, and freedom to secure it. Their reward for voicing legitimate concerns about Canadas draconian Covid policies, however, has been an authoritarian crackdown at the behest of Trudeau, who could have deescalated the situation by listening to the convoys concerns. His pride and intolerance, though, allowed only one response: The truckers hold unacceptable views and must therefore be treated like terrorists.

By recklessly invoking the Emergencies Act and involving the Canadian military, Trudeau has massively escalated a situation that could now easily spiral out of control. If it does, he will only have himself to blame.

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.

View post:

If Canada's Crackdown Spirals Out Of Control, Trudeau Will Be To Blame - The Federalist

Students in Los Angeles Unified School District are still suffering from mask tyranny while tens of thousands of adults in California have a free pass from the corporate media and other Covid-crazed critics to party it up in honor of the Super Bowl because it is politically convenient for Democrats.

While hundreds of unmasked, left-wing celebrities cheered on the Los Angeles Rams to victory during Super Bowl LVI at SoFi stadium in L.A. on Sunday night, students as young as 2 years old were forced by hypocritical politicians, health bureaucrats, and power-hungry teachers unions in the same city to wear face coverings for hours on end at local daycares and schools the next morning.

Plenty of parents and students in California have expressed outrage over prolonged masking in the state, especially as Democrats in other states, hoping to boost their 2022 midterm chances, are calling for the end of Covid protocols. Their calls to unmask kids and truly follow the science on Covid risk among children, however, have been largely ignored for two years by the same people who turned a blind eye to maskless hypocrites at this years Super Bowl.

Despite orders from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and demands from the NFL that Super Bowl participants as young as 2 years old wear masks, virtue-signaling coastal elites, entertainment legends, Hollywood stars, politicians, and star athletes who preached masking throughout the pandemic all went bare-faced during the big game.

Fans and stars alike were gifted KN95 masks when they entered the stadium but the people, especially celebrities, who wore them were few and far between.

Among those caught without a mask were LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, Sean Penn, The Weeknd, Matt Damon, Kevin Hart, Ellen DeGeneres, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez, Kanye West, Drake, Martha Stewart, The Rock, Tracy Morgan, Justin Bieber, Hailey Bieber, Kendall Jenner, Adam DeVine, and more. The list goes on and on.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, was also caught without a face covering just one week after he claimed he held his breath when violating local mask orders at the NFC Championship game. At the time, Garcetti was posing for a photo with NBA star Magic Johnson.

Hip-hop icons such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Kendrick Lamar, 50 Cent, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, and their performers also got away without masks during their crowded throwback halftime show.

These phony little tyrants pushed Covid rules when it was convenient for them but ditched the same rules when it wasnt. Public officials, teachers unions, and politicians unwilling to give up their power claim they want to strap masks on kids for safety and Covid-19 prevention. The science and their actions, however, tell a different story.

For them, the end of the pandemic occurs when its not convenient for them any longer. While partying at what would have been smeared as a superspreader event not long ago was glossed over by the Covid-crazed media, making schoolchildren suffer for years in masks that hinder their social and linguistics development is still a useful agenda item that satiates teachers unions who largely donate to Democrat campaigns that give them what they want.

While California Gov. Gavin Newsom has toyed with finally rescinding some of his mask mandates for the Golden State, hes holding out on behalf of teachers unions, which backed him during his recall election.

They just asked for a little bit more time, and I think thats responsible, and I respect that, the governor said of teachers unions at a news conference last week.

California Democrats will cruelly keep children in masks and celebrities will keep supporting them so long as dollars keep flowing but, of course, they cant let that ruin a maskless Super Bowl celebration.

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:

Elites Party Maskless On Super Bowl Sunday, Kids Are Masked At School On Monday - The Federalist

Eighteen-year-old San Francisco native Eileen Gu has become an overnight sensation after her recent gold medal victory in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games in the big air skiing competition. Gu was born to an American father and a Chinese mother, is bilingual, and has a career as a fashion model outside of her successful athletic pursuits.

In an ideal world, Gu would be seen as the embodiment of the American dream and fill the hearts of every patriot with pride as she ascended the medal podium. Unfortunately, Americans will get no such opportunity. Gu has decided to represent geopolitical rival China in this years games. Gu has said she feels just as American as I am Chinese but chose China over America on the world stage.

Gu is not alone. Many American-born athletes, some with no ethnic Chinese background, have chosen to represent China in this years games. Almost all on Chinas 2022 mens hockey team were born or raised in North America. Further, many of these athletes will use a Chinese name when competing for the foreign power. American Jake Chelios will go by Jieke Kailiaosi when playing for Team China.

Americas best are choosing to disavow the land of their birth, the names of their fathers, and the culture of their community to give glory to China. Perhaps an exodus like this would shock more Americans if it was out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, most Americans are all too familiar with our cultures attacks on our national identity and on each other.

One need look no further than American corporate media to feel the hate radiate off the screen. This week, Viacom-owned streaming service Showtime announced a new show called Everythings Gonna Be All White. The first line of the trailer says, I think what annoys me most about white people is when they pretend like theyre the victim, followed by mock tears.

Each holiday or day of celebration, the media is happy to supply an endless buffet of thing you like is bad, actually think pieces to shove down your throat. And when creators do occasionally emerge with the ability to unite and create something that many people enjoy, they are forced to operate within an ever-shrinking window of acceptable ideas and destroyed if they soar too close to the sun.

There are many ways to understand this phenomenon, but on a basic level, Americans are attacking their neighbors heroes, traditions, and races. It is not difficult to imagine how this constant self-mutilation will bleed a nation out of confidence, vitality, and spirit. No one should be surprised when just 28 percent of Americans think America is on the right track.

Self-deprecation has become an American value. Is it then any wonder that athletes are not in a hurry to represent a nation that hates itself and those who call it home?

Whatever can be said about China, it does not despise the thought of its own existence. It will not apologize for expanding its influence through the Belt and Road initiative, dominating manufacturing, or openly threatening to take Taiwan. The Chinese regime and its supporters may know their country is not perfect, but it is their country. They believe it is their destiny to control and they will not listen to complaints from their enemies.

Americans have mostly tuned out the 2022 Olympics to this point, handing NBC some of its worst ratings in Olympics coverage ever. Many pundits blame American viewers anger about the Uyghur genocide for low interest. While there is some truth in this claim, it misses the deeper disease finally showing its symptoms in America.

Broken by the constant harassment by entrenched media, political, academic, and social classes, Americans are hesitant to cheer for those who claim to represent them because many who make the same claim have broken their trust. Americans cannot be rallied around beating China because they cannot be rallied. Passion for country, countrymen, or creed can no longer animate the American heart.

This system cannot hold if America hopes to survive. A humiliated and downtrodden nation is not worthy of preservation or investment. Despondent citizens will refuse to delay gratification and attempt to get as much meat from the dying beast before it decays completely.

They will be unwilling to raise families, volunteer, and participate in community activities like church attendance. They will instead turn to quick, easy diversions like porn and drug use. Solutions are not plentiful or easy, and I do not envy cultural or political leaders who hope to solve these problems, but ignoring them only hastens the dissolution of our nation.

A few unpatriotic athletes may not destroy our nation, but a complete lack of national culture and purpose will. Americans must suffocate the subversive elements of our society of money, power, and attention. It is time to kick the dividers of America from the podium and replace them with those honored to represent their nation.

Cal McNellie is a Senior at Hillsdale College studying Financial Management and Politics. He has been published in the Hillsdale College Collegian, The Federalist and is host of the Screening for Meaning Podcast. He is a native of Clevland, Ohio and is on Twitter @bigcalmc.

Go here to see the original:

Thanks To Self-Flagellation, Americans Are Abandoning Team USA - The Federalist

I have a question for conservative friends excited about the prospect of an Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to amend the U.S. Constitution: What makes you think that only conservatives would show up?

The Convention of the States (CoS) campaign, largely led by Republicans, recently persuaded Wisconsin and Nebraska to apply to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Seventeen states have applied, half of the two-thirds (34) needed to trigger this unprecedented event.

CoS resolutions propose restraints on federal spending, limits on government power and jurisdiction, and term limits. Additional campaigns are promoting various amendments to achieve similar goals. Con-Con enthusiasts promise to cure government spending and overreach by amending the Constitution.

It doesnt matter what they promise, however, or which organizations support or oppose the Con-Con. What matters is who shows up. Liberal activists would crash the Con-Con party and whatever ratification process ensues. This would not be hard to do, so why wouldnt they?

Article V says Congress shall call a convention requested by two-thirds of the states. Its unclear what the role of all 50 states would be, but they are of course blue as well as red. This means that liberal activists will have full access to any constitutional convention.

So if the Con-Con process started tomorrow, who would Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer select as delegates? Pelosi could exclude Republican choices, as with her January 6 committee, or trade her speakers gavel for the Con-Con chairmanship.

Conservative Con-Con promoters will not control who attends, what issues are discussed, or what constitutional amendments ultimately are approved. The convention will make all decisions and conservatives will not be able to guarantee the outcome.

Imagine both political parties attending the same national convention, at the same time, with progressive insiders controlling credentials, rules, issues committees, and voting procedures.

Participants would include not just conservative Republicans, but Democrats, RINOs, socialists, Green New Dealers, Supreme Court packers, gun controllers, police de-funders, big spenders, Roe v. Wade codifiers, teacher unions, Anthony Fauci fans, Electoral College critics, race-obsessed wokesters, social justice warriors, and peaceniks who would balance the federal budget by disbanding the Department of Defense.

Conservatives who blithely assume that only conservatives would be empowered to participate in a Con-Con, and that ratification procedures would block unwanted results, should read Mollie Hemingways book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. As Mollie wrote, well before Election Day arrived, leftist factions used insider manipulations and bare-knuckled tactics to wire the election for Joe Biden.

Mark Zuckerberg spent $419 million Zuck bucks to finance the private takeover of government election offices. And allies in big tech media used perception management tactics to create false news and promote belief.

The Constitution empowers state legislatures to oversee elections. Thirty-nine states modified their laws or procedures in 2020, and many courts and state election administrators got away with changing or overriding election rules without legislative approval.

Why would such tactics not be used to control the outcome of an Article V Constitutional Convention? Millions more Zuck bucks could easily subsidize Con-Con crashers participating in expensive state and national conventions, especially in blue states.

Most leaders of the Article V Con-Con movement have no personal experience with the dynamics of political conventions, much less contested conventions. Key decisions are made months before a national convention begins, and decisive motions often are passed without warning with a gavel crack on a voice vote.

As reported in Rigged, courts are useless when fast-moving political events override internal organizational rules and even established law. Several book chapters end with regret, with statements like, Republicans later learned and The court ruled in Trumps favor, but it was too late.

Presidential elections come and go, but Donald Trumps loss was a small setback compared to the political calamity for America if our Constitution were permanently altered to suit progressive goals.

Regardless of how an Article V convention is called or who promises what, it is nave to assume that a pre-written set of rules for a Con-Con would play out as conservatives expect. Once a convention begins, it makes its own rules. Promises about procedures and outcomes are meaningless because they are unenforceable.

When things go wronglike marching brooms and buckets swamping the Sorcerers apprentice in Disneys Fantasiacourts would be no help. In disputes about convention procedures or results, advocates making promises today will lose later in court where, if they win, it will be too late. Either way, this is a fiasco in the making.

I saw how this works years ago, when I was active in grassroots issues and elective politics in the Michigan Republican Party. In 1988 the Michigan Party was the first to choose national delegates. The contentious state convention split in two, and the conservative coalition filed a lawsuit charging violations of state law.

The lawsuit lost in a lower court but prevailed on appealmany months after the National Convention ended. Recently, the Trump campaign finally won an election lawsuit in Wisconsin, but the ruling is on appeal. Meanwhile, Biden has been president for 13 months.

Now comes legislative redistricting. According to Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel, former Attorney General Eric Holder is using aggressive litigation, accusations of voter suppression, racial intimidation, and misleading rhetoric to gerrymander election maps and make it harder for Republicans to win in 2022 and 2024. This is no time for conservatives to divert time, attention, and resources to cope with a self-induced Constitutional Convention crisis.

Some well-meaning leaders seem to imagine themselves as latter-day Founding Fathers, and excited followers envision a festive gathering socializing with Fox News celebrities who anticipate a good show. All should reconsider what they are asking for.

Federal spending is unrestrained, but our Constitution is not the problem. It would make more sense for state lawmakers to return federal subsidies to the U.S. Treasury than to bet the Constitution in a reckless gamble they are likely to lose.

Instead of rose-colored glasses, we need a clear-eyed assessment of political realities. Conservatives should focus on strategies to win, without putting our Constitution at risk.

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military and social issues.

Go here to see the original:

Why Is The Right Betting The Constitution On An Article V Convention? - The Federalist