Category Archives: Federalist

The 2022 agenda for House Republicans may be out of touch with the current political moment, but at least they can say theyre trying. Over on the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the leader of the Senates Republican conference, has announced hes not even putting out an agenda for 2022.

According to reporting by Axios last month, McConnell told a room full of donors, lobbyists, and in-cycle senators that he would not be putting forward an agenda outlining the priorities for his conference should Senate Republicans regain a majority in 2022. When asked by CNN last week what the GOP agenda would be in a potential majority, McConnell responded, That is a very good question and Ill let you know when we take it back. He went on, This midterm election will be a report card on the performance of this entire Democratic government, the president, the House, and the Senate.

In other words, McConnell and GOP senators seem prepared to run solely on a platform detailing how bad the other guy is, and that scrupulously and intentionally avoids discussing what they intend to do about it.

In fairness, this is not completely irrational. Never interfere with an enemy when hes in the process of destroying himself, as the old war adage goes. With their class-shaming Covid protocols, woke militancy, endless race-baiting, and radical cultural crusading, Democrats seem intent on doubling down on an agenda that is turning off Americans in droves.

According to Gallup, voters are turning to Republicans in historic numbers. This doesnt seem to be because Republicans have done anything noteworthy. All theyve done is successfully appear marginally less insane.

What McConnell likely means by Ill let you know is that K Streets concerns will be satisfied. Wall Street will get what it needs, as will the corporate industry titans, including the Big Tech firms. So will the defense industrial barons, who will find every military adventure they engage in, regardless of merit, fully funded and shielded from criticism, much less debate. He doesnt have to say it out loud. When the GOP had no stated agenda, this is always the result.

As they approach 2022, the Senate GOP appears to be relying on their decades-old governing philosophy: wink at the status quo while promising youll keep it from getting worse. The problem, however, is that the same phenomenon that is pushing voters into the arms of the GOP the facts that peoples lives are being ruined, their livelihoods upended, and the fundamental nature of individual liberty distorted by Democrats in both the public and private sector is likewise raising the stakes for whats expected of the GOP.

As more voters turn to Republicans in desperate hope theyll make the beatings stop, Republicans have to commit to doing it. Simply promising to defend the status quo wont cut it this time, particularly for new voters who have no long-held attachment to the party.

The multi-directional onslaught unleashed on voters by Democrats, public health tyrants, and the corporate sector requires a bold and kinetic response from Republicans.

Joe Biden and the Centers for Disease Control are not going to stop issuing cultish, draconian, class-shaming, and completely un-scientific Covid restrictions unless Congress refuses to fund them. School children, under the guise of critical race theory, will still be told their skin color is what makes them worthy unless the abetting federal funding prohibits it. The price of consumer goods will continue to climb until Congress addresses the systemic issues in our monetary policy and supply chains.

Americas leading corporations will still willingly entangle themselves with genocidal Chinese communists unless it is made painful for them to do so. Big Tech will continue to tyrannize small businesses and de-platform Republican elected officials (and millions of others) from the public square unless Congress makes changes to current laws and passes new ones.

Moreover, the left has a grip on major federal institutions, not to mention universities and major cultural entities all over the country. Its laughable to think their relentless march will stop simply because McConnell now runs the Senate instead of Schumer. Rather, it will take creative lawmaking and sustained pressure from congressional majorities to even begin to turn the tide.

But! the immediate retort from Very Smart People goes, Biden will veto whatever Republican majorities may send to him. So this entire exercise is pointless. Instead, House congressmen are suggesting they should work with Biden on immigration as if Biden would support any legislation that doesnt contain massive amnesty. Or find ways to cooperate on other goals, as Sen. Lisa Murkowski recently pondered, like making Social Security more sustainable.

Its true, the Biden White House will likely veto anything that comes out of a Republican-controlled Congress. To that, I say, good! Let Biden veto whatever he wants. The voters will be much better served by forcing clarification on the major issues plaguing millions of Americans around the country than some half-baked compromise on Social Security that robs future Peter to pay present Paul, inevitably shields the Boomers from sacrifice, and ultimately changes nothing. Or worse, a massive amnesty deal.

Although establishment Republicans love to mock the call to fight on behalf of the voters, sustained and focused action, even when ultimately unsuccessful, resonates with voters more than the usual establishment game of tut-tutting conservatives as unserious, lowering expectations through the floor, and pivoting instead to discussions of whats possible. (Which is, predictably, always code for K Street wants.)

In a sense, though, this is broader than McConnell. Unlike the House, where majorities rule and the speaker has an iron grip on what comes to the House floor, the Senate is uniquely permissive.

Most of McConnells authority over the floor is deferred to him by the GOP conference. Each senator has the ability to proceed to whatever legislation he or she wants (and get at least one vote) when other matters arent pending. And each senator has the ability to push back against the grip McConnell and his predecessors have exerted over the Senate floor, internally, and by leveraging the power of their consent.

McConnell may have no agenda and an ill grasp of the political moment, but that doesnt mean his conference must. Whether or not a future Republican Senate can rise to the task of actually meeting voter concerns providing even the most baseline function of a legislative body in letting voters see their concerns addressed, discussed, and considered in the Senate is a prerogative that sits equally on the shoulders of Republican senators.

Every election is always tagged with the most important election of our lifetimes, but this one does feel more burdened. Working-class voters are in a power struggle against elite forces who hate them. Democrats and their handmaidens in local and state government have planted themselves firmly between living freely and living according to mandates, rules, and social credit. In Washington, theyre literally coming up with ways to jail their political opponents.

This is not a status quo that can be sustained. Republicans cannot simply rally voters with a promise not to make it worse. Republicans cannot, in other words, do what they have largely always done with a Senate majority: set it on a shelf, polish it, and admire it from afar while checking off a Beltway-driven agenda designed solely to protect incumbents.

Rather, a majority must be used. Not only for the purpose of giving new GOP voters a reason to stay, although that is a benefit, but because its the right and urgently necessary thing to do. Democrats have so aggressively overstepped, which may send their congressional majorities over a cliff, but it wont stop their allies.

The lefts institutions and public health bureaucrats arent going to simply stop torturing us because they feel like it. If Senate Republicans cannot find it in them to stand up for their voters now, when the stakes are so perilous and the moment so fraught, then what are they good for?

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist's senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Mike Lee. She also served as director of policy services for The Heritage Foundation.

See the article here:

Republicans Plan To Win Back The Senate, Then Do Nothing, Per Usual - The Federalist

A New Jersey gym owner who refused to close his gym under the states Democrat governors lockdown order was sentenced to one year probation.

Ian Smith, co-owner of Atilis Gym in the Philadelphia suburb of Bellmawr, kept his business open to allow residents to maintain a high level of baseline health in the face of a virus disproportionately killing obese people.

We got one year probation for the crime of taking our doors off to prevent government goons from locking us out of our gym, Smith announced on Twitter Thursday after the sentencing hearing. [Atilis Gym] is open and will remain open at any cost.

Smiths decision has indeed come at a high cost. According to the Post Millennial, Smith was fined $1.2 million and vowed to stay open anyway as what he described as a f*ck you to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy. Smith also said his business license was revoked in August 2020. That same month, a meta-analysis of studies probing the risks of Covid to those who carry excess weight revealed those with obesity were at least 113 percent more likely to be hospitalized, at least 74 percent more likely to need intensive care, and nearly 50 percent more likely to die.

In March of last year, Smith began to offer free memberships to those who did not take the Covid vaccine to enhance their metabolic health amid a circulating virus that especially threatens the unhealthy. Just two weeks prior, the CDC published data showing nearly 80 percent of those hospitalized with the novel Wuhan coronavirus were overweight or obese. Smith announced his incentive a day after Krispy Kreme offered free donuts to individuals who showed their vaccine card, promoting a complacency with the normalization of sedentary lifestyles incentivized by government officials who implemented lockdowns.

We believe in health the real way exercise, good diet, plenty of Vitamin D, Zinc, and an environment to destress, Smith wrote.

In an era of an endemic virus with new variants poised to circumvent vaccines with waning immunity, confronting the American obesity epidemic has become even more important.

The American population entered the coronavirus epidemic unhealthy to begin with. The latest CDC data available on nationwide BMI scores precedes a pandemic where 42 percent of American adults, by one estimate from the American Psychological Association (APA), reported undesired weight gain. Of those adults, the average gain was 29 pounds. In the days leading up to Covids inception, less than a third of Americans were at a healthy weight, according to the CDC. More than 42 percent qualified as obese.

In stark contrast to First Lady Michelle Obamas efforts to confront the underlying epidemic brewing out of control 10 years ago, the Biden White House appears unconcerned about Americans health beyond the Fauci-prescribed measures of endless vaccines and mask-wearing.

When asked at the press briefing Thursday why the administration has not promoted healthier lifestyles in the Covid era, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, Whats most important to note is what we know is most effective, which is getting vaccinated, getting boosted, wearing a mask.

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.

The rest is here:

New Jersey Gym Owner Sentenced To Probation For Saving Lives - The Federalist

Over last weekend, attorneys for Carter Page filed responses to motions to dismiss filed by the FBI and eight agents involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that led to the government illegally obtaining four surveillance warrants to spy on Page.

In November 2020, Page, who had briefly served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump campaign, sued the defendants in a D.C. federal court alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Patriot Act, and the Privacy Act. In response, the government and the individual defendants argued Pages claims were time-barred or that Page had no legal grounds on which to sue. Pages responses counter those arguments while providing five key take-aways.

With Spygate developments few and far between, it is easy to forget the breadth and depth of the scandal. The briefs docketed on Saturday in Pages lawsuit against the FBI and the agents involved in obtaining the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrants serve as an important refresher of what our government did to an innocent man in the hopes of getting Trump. As Pages brief against the individual defendants noted in its opening, this case is extraordinary because they were not mere field agents bending the rules to pursue criminals, but rather the highest level FBI executives.

Even the case name, Page v. Comey, confirms the truth of that assertion, with former FBI Director James Comey named as one of the eight defendants. Pages brief details Comeys alleged involvement in the Department of Justice obtaining four FISA surveillance orders against the Naval Academy graduate, stressing that Comey was not merely a supervisory who signed the FISA applications, but was personally involved.

Establishing Comey and the other agents personal involvement proved a key feature of the briefs, because, to avoid dismissal of the complaint, Page needed to show the allegations of the complaint could reasonably support a finding that the individual defendants did more than merely supervise employees who violated Pages Fourth Amendment rights and rights under FISA.

The 70-page omnibus brief addressing the claims against the individual defendants detailed the personal involvement of each. For instance, for the former FBI director, the brief stressed that on or about August 17, 2016, Comey received information from the CIA establishing that Dr. Page was an operation contact for the CIA during the period of 2008-2013.

Comey also knew from a September 7, 2016, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) communique that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server, according to the court filing. Comey nonetheless approved the use of the fabricated Christopher Steele dossier to obtain the FISA surveillance orders, and eventually signed three of the four FISA surveillance applications.

Next named in Pages lawsuit was Andrew McCabe, a former deputy director of the FBI. McCabe was also personally involved in obtaining the illegal FISA surveillance order, according to Pages most recent court filing.

Among other things, McCabe signed the affidavit the FBI submitted in support of the final FISA application. McCabes involvement went further, Pages attorneys argued, pointing out that he hosted an August 15, 2016 meeting with co-defendants Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussing an insurance policy to prevent a Donald Trump election, and he had approved the FISA applications even though he knew they omitted Carter Pages past assistance to the CIA.

The brief next discussed Kevin Clinesmiths involvement in the FISA abuse. Clinesmith, who served as an assistant general counsel in the FBIs Office of General Counsel, falsely told the FBI that Page was never a source. Then, when asked for written confirmation of that representation, Clinesmith altered the text of the email he had received from the CIA liaison, making the email read that Page was not a source.

Clinesmith then forwarded the altered email to the FBI. Clinesmith later pleaded guilty to making a false statement related to this conduct.

Strzok and Lisa Pages involvement in the FISA surveillance scheme received attention next. Strzok, who served at the time as the FBI deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, also knew of the CIAs warning that Clinton had approved a plan to claim Trump had colluded with Russia to distract the public from her misuse of a private server. Strzok also stated an intention to stop Trump from becoming president and discussed an insurance policy to prevent a Trump election.

Lisa Pages personal involvement mirrored that of Strzoks, but in addition she attended a briefing with McCabe, at which Bruce Ohr advised them that Steeles work product was not for the U.S. Government but, rather, was political opposition research for a private political party.

The briefs repeated this process for the remaining individual defendants: Joe Pientka, who served as a supervisory agent on the Crossfire Hurricane team; Stephen Somma, an FBI agent who represented himself as Steve Holt to Page; and Brian Auten, an FBI supervisory intelligence analyst.

Pientka, Carter Page stressed, had falsely certified that the information in the first FISA warrant was verified for accuracy and later failed to correct the application, even after learning in November 2016 from Ohr that Steele was not a reliable source and had been paid to conduct the opposition research against Trump.

The response filed on Saturday also detailed Sommas involvement, noting that he had pushed initially for the FISA warrant. Further, according to Page, Defendant Somma personally provided incomplete, inaccurate, and conflicting information to the DOJ Office Attorney who asked whether Dr. Page had been a source for the CIA.

In fact, according to Page, Somma actually knew he had served as an operational contact for the CIA from 2008-2013, but failed to accurately describe that relationship to others. Somma also did not inform the FISA court that Igor Danchenko, Steeles primary sub-source for his fabricated dossier, contradicted Steeles supposed intel.

The final defendant, Auten, also held personal responsibility for violating Pages Fourth Amendment rights and violations of the Patriot Act, according to Pages lawyer. Auten played an instrumental role along with the agents preparing the FISA applicationsincluding reviewing the probable cause section of the applications.

In preparing the applications, Auten falsely enhanced the credibility of information obtained from Steele, according to Page, writing that information from Steele had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings, although none of Steeles past reporting as an informant had been corroborated and had never been used in any criminal proceedings.

Auten also intentionally failed to disclose the negative feedback that he had received from British Intelligence Service colleagues regarding Steele, according to the court filing, including a caution from Steeles former colleagues that Steele exercised poor judgment and pursued as sources people with political risk but no intel value.

Even with the details noted above and additional ones included in the 100-plus pages of combined briefs filed by Pages legal team this weekend, so much remains unknown because the government holds sole possession of the information. That lack of knowledge, Page argued in his briefs, makes dismissal of his lawsuit at this stage premature.

It is also abundantly clear that there is a trove of currently non-public documents and facts that relate to Dr. Pages claims, which are presently in the exclusive possession of the Individual Defendants and the United States and its agencies, but which will undoubtedly further support and vindicate Dr. Pages claims, Pages attorney wrote.

Then, as a perfect illustration of the point, Pages legal team pointed to the fact that after they initially filed suit in November 2020, additional facts concerning Defendant Clinesmiths role with respect to the alteration of the email were disclosed when the Department of Justice filed its sentencing memorandum in Defendant Clinesmiths criminal prosecution, including internal FBI emails not referenced in the Horowitz Report.

Also unknown at this time is which defendants, if any, leaked information to the press. The brief suggests Lisa Page and Strzok hold responsibility for the leaks, noting that on Monday, April 10, 2017, Defendant Strzok sent [Lisa Page] another text message stating, I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.

Two days later, the brief continued, Strzok sent Defendant Lisa Page a text message to alert her that two media articles were coming out about her namesake [Dr. Page] and that one was worse than the other. Then, later the same week, the Washington Post and the New York Times published articles about Dr. Page and the governments investigation of him, including that FISA warrants were used, with Strzok that weekend texting Lisa Page: article is out! and Well done, Page.

The briefs filed this weekend also stressed that after the FISA warrant was issued, a stream of information about Dr. Page . . . and his supposed status as a Russian agent working to undermine the nation, began to flood the airwaves and the newsstands. The source of that information can only have been the Crossfire Hurricane team, the brief argued.

In addition to Strzok and Lisa Page, in the separate brief Carter Pages legal team filed this weekend in response to the governments motion to dismiss, lawyers claimed that defendants Comey and McCabe also leaked information and records concerning Dr. Page to media outlets, including but not limited to the existence of the FISA warrants, the contents of the warrant applications, and the results of the warrants, that were protected from disclosure under FISA and the Privacy Act.

Without discovery, however, Page lacks the ability to establish the party or parties responsible for the leaks with certainty, which supports his argument that dismissing his claims at this point is premature.

Reading Pages briefs also reminds one of the lopsided battle he faced in trying to clear his name when he went up against the Crossfire Hurricane team. He literally wrote Comey. He reminded the FBI that he had worked with the CIA. He voluntarily submitted to multiple interviews with FBI agents. His lawyer spoke with Clinesmith.

Yet they persisted. It was one individual against the mammoth monstrosity that calls itself the intelligence community.

Now Page is taking on the same monster that is proving itself as regenerative as the mythical hydra. Not only does Page face the federal government, represented by Department of Justice attorneys, but each defendant has his or her own group of powerhouse D.C. lawyers combatting Pages push for justice, leaving Pages small legal team fighting against nine separate teams of defense attorneys.

One wonders who is paying for all those private law firms, and whether it is taxpayers?

While Pages legal team may be outgunned, their briefing proves top-notch, both in its legal advocacy and its ability to point out the absurdity of many of the defendants arguments with a flair that cuts through legal niceties.

Early on, Pages attorneys honed in on the key strategy the defendants seem to have settled onpoint the finger at someone else. Each defendant sought to outdo each other in minimizing their respective roles in the fiasco, the brief noted, each claiming their culpability in deceiving the FISC, unlawfully disclosing information, and violating Dr. Pages rights was too minor to impose civil liability on them. If the individual defendants are to be believed, the brief quipped, these unlawful and false warrants wrote themselves.

As quoted from Ian Fleming in Goldfinger, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time its enemy action, crystalized another point by Pages legal team: that the defendants conduct cannot be put down to mistakes or even sloppiness but creates the reasonable inference that they intentionally caused the violation of Pages rights.

Then, in summing up their argument on behalf of Page, the brief closed by reminding the judge that the FBI unlawfully used the power of the federal government, in the form of secret, anti-terrorism surveillance tools, to violate the rights of an innocent American. It is long past time for the United States to step up to the plate and do right by Dr. Page, the brief closed.

Whether Carter Page will succeed in fending off dismissal of his case against the DOJ, FBI, and litany of Crossfire Hurricane agents will not be known for some time. The defendants will all have a chance to reply to Pages briefing, meaning another nine briefs to counter Pages two court filings.

The district court will then face many tough legal questions, beginning with whether Page waited too long to sue. Next, the court will need to determine whether Page adequately alleged sufficient facts under his various theories of liability and specifically whether each individual defendant holds responsibility for the illegal FISA warrant under an aiding and abetting theory.

Carter Page also presents a unique claim against the federal government under The Privacy Act, arguing that his rights were violated by the inspector general when the IG refused to allow Page to review and respond to the report discussing the four FISA warrants obtained against Page.

Check back later this week for a legal analysis of these and the other issues presented in Page v. Comey. In the meantime, consider what it means to our country that this case even exists.

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

See the rest here:

5 Takeaways From The Latest In The Carter Page Spygate Lawsuit - The Federalist

In a recent announcement, College Board expressed plans to make significant changes to the SAT that will go into effect in 2024. The test will be fully digital and shortened from roughly three hours to two. The reading passages will be made shorter and the math section will allow the use of a calculator throughout. In short, the test will be easier for both the testers and the person being tested.

According to College Board, the changes are meant to address concerns with access because of Covid and the lack of equity in the SAT, which some allege favors certain racial and socioeconomic groups. The complaint about equity has led a large number of colleges to stop using SAT scores as part of their admissions. Evidently, College Board is hoping that making the test easier and shorter will narrow these performance gaps and restore the usefulness of the SAT as an assessment for college readiness.

However, by working off false premises, College Board is coming to the wrong conclusion. All these proposed changes will simply lower the standard for everyone, hardly address problems with equity, and make the SAT all the more useless.

Any teacher or data coach who analyzes test results can attest to seeing this kind of logic play out in most state standardized tests. In the beginning, these tests were more challenging and designed to assess higher-level thinking skills. Over time, however, wave after wave of low scores and obvious performance gaps cause the test creators to lower standards dramatically. Finally, the test becomes a pointless hurdle for teachers and students to jump through, inviting calls for a new standardized test that actually says something.

Dumbing down a test is often subtle, but there are a few ways to spot it: make passages shorter with lower reading levels, simplify the math problems, allow a calculator, dictionary, and even provide some basic strategies for working through the test. Along with these changes, the scoring is often needlessly complicated with a series of formulas and algorithms replete with multipliers and random variables to supposedly indicate whether a student meets or masters expectations. Hence, standardized tests usually fill a whole sheet with a multitude of categories, bar graphs, tables, and color-coded labels to communicate a testers final score.

This was the evolution of Texass standardized test, the STAAR, which started in 2013. In its earlier days, it was highly regarded in terms of quality, and many students did poorly on it. These were the days of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), so mass failure on a campus often meant the threat of a school or district receiving a failing grade and being reconstituted. Naturally, this led to wailing and gnashing of teeth among administrators and educators, who were now having to shape up their instruction and pay attention to data.

To make matters worse, the data from STAAR indicated serious gaps between students of different races. Thus, even the more affluent campuses that had relatively high pass rates were still given low marks because the few students who failed were largely students of color. Thus, for the sake of equity, there was an effort among all campuses to teach to the bottom and get these few students to pass while stronger students were largely neglected.

After so many years, though, STAAR scores mysteriously improved. Most students were passing it now, and those who didnt would usually pull it out in subsequent retests. Principals and teachers patted themselves on the back for the improvement, although it was never clear what led to the change. Few people dared to suggest the test itself might have become easier even though this was the most logical explanation. After all, even while STAAR scores were improving, other non-state standardized tests like the ACT and SAT were steadily declining.

Now the SAT is abandoning any pretense of objectivity. Sure enough, the scores on the test will likely rise, gaps between students will likely narrow, and college admissions offices may feel more comfortable using SAT scores to gauge incoming students ability to succeed.

But all this will do is hide the ugly truth: the quality of American education as a whole is declining. Kids are learning less both in the high school and college levels, but the data will indicate otherwise. They may not be able to read very well, write a grammatically correct sentence, or solve most math problems, but their scores indicate that theyre just as smart or smarter than other classes. While there seems to be less of an achievement gap, thats only because weve mostly eliminated the idea of achievement.

All the same, many will buy into the lie and treat this as a cause to celebrate. It lets educators and schools off the hook, encourages students to go to college, and allows College Board to make more money and virtue signal at the same time. If it means students suffer by wasting more time and money in school, so be it. They can brag that they are the best-educated generation in American history.

Real improvement will only come when people are ready to cut through this false narrative, form a sober, truthful assessment of what is happening, and respond accordingly. The SAT and other standardized tests used to help with this by assessing academic ability and offering an opportunity for those of any background to distinguish themselves.

Unfortunately, identity politics has reversed this. Now testing companies like College Board are actively gaslighting the public by keeping them in the dark about how students are really doing. This lulls parents and educators into thinking that their children are fine and that educational reform isnt all that urgent.

But the reality is that improving the quality of learning for all students is quite urgent. The lowering of academic standards is happening everywhere, and the new SAT reflects this. It falls on parents to push back, not only by voicing their concerns to district and campus leaders and electing competent politicians, but by taking on a bigger role in their childrens education and becoming teachers themselves.

By pushing equity over quality, schools and testing companies are essentially admitting defeat. If parents and educators hope to win the battle of hearts and minds on the issue of education, they will have to lead the charge themselves and find a different test to measure todays students.

Follow this link:

Dumbing Down The SAT Sums Up The State Of American Education - The Federalist

It was by sheer happenstance that I stumbled upon the month-old interview clip of Billie Eilish. I paused to watch not because Im a super fan of her music, but because her fresh and natural appearance caught my eye, and her attitudinal change kept my attention. She looked beautiful, and her easy laugh and honest reflections exuded confidence.

Of course, Id seen the once-moody and neon-haired star dressed in old Hollywood glam on the cover of Vogue and at the Met Gala, but this wasnt a single photo shoot or an occasion for one-off fashion experimentation. This was just Billie being herself in front of the camera.

It was Vanity Fairs fifth annual interview with the young star. Each year, the magazine recites the same questions about the artists influences, the size of her following, who her confidants are, and how she feels about her style. Then they merge these videos and catch Eilishs reactions to her old self and current answers. At just 19, a bright and breezy Eilish simultaneously laughed off the follies of herself yesteryear and exposed past insecurities.

Instead of rattling off mega-celebrities when asked who she goes to for advice, Eilish confidently replied its her mom. And instead of hiding behind a grotesque style and cool detachment, the artists cute blonde bob was accompanied by free-flowing laughter. It was lovely.

It was as if the young star, among many other developments in her life, had internalized a truth thats fallen out of favor with many people, especially those on the political left and particularly among Eilishs predecessor millennial generation: Girls, its OK to be beautiful.

A convergence of the Me Too movement, the body positivity movement, multi-wave feminism, the smartphone generation, and the sexual revolution has left women confused, and frankly, its left them uglier.

Its left them uglier not only in attitude weve all seen that from the disgruntled women in p-ssy hats screaming profanities at inanimate government buildings although thats part of it. Theres nothing attractive about misplaced and uncontrolled anger, whether it comes from men or women.

But its also left them physically ugly. This unattractiveness comes in many forms. Sometimes its intentionally unflattering clothing or makeup. Other times its grotesque haircuts, such as bizarre shaven spots that look like a bad lawn-mowing job or nonstop bedhead, or flaunting body hair.

Not to mention, its created aggressive opposition to the appreciation of beauty. Take a look at this Ph.D. in Psychology Today lecturing adults on Why We Need to Stop Telling Little Girls How Pretty They Are.

This is hardly an exhaustive list of this modern defiance because the non-beautiful is always rearing its head in new ways. But like I said, this phenomenon has emerged thanks to quite the confluence of factors.

For instance, body positivity concluded rightly that women of all shapes and sizes should recognize their self-worth. The movement wrongly swung to the extreme of glorifying obesity, such as on the cover of Cosmo and every other major womens magazine and advertisement. Heres obese star Lizzo celebrating more weight gain.

Likewise, the sexual revolution gave a thumbs up to exploitation, and feminism endorsed the masculinization of women and with each drift and deconstruction of beauty, too many women were left looking and feeling less like themselves.

Its something were discouraged from discussing; appreciating beauty or talking about what exactly it is opens one up to accusations of bigotry, sexism, or discrimination. Why are beauty standards so oppressive to women? for instance, or Beauty isnt a dress size! Nonetheless, questions of beauty are philosophical, spiritual, and to some degree eternal, and thus we must consider them.

For starters, we must ask what beauty even is, and by way of a simple dictionary definition thats fairly easy to answer: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit: LOVELINESS, if you ask Merriam-Webster.

Within the simple definition is the implication that theres a distinction between attractiveness and loveliness. One is subjective, the other objective. What gives pleasure to the senses of one person (subjective) might not evoke the same response in another. For proof, look no further than the billions of happy couples across the globe whose spouses range in size, color, shape, and other characteristics. But theres an aggregate of qualities that compose this more objective loveliness, and they cant be reduced to mid-2000s Victorias Secret angels or Barbie doll features.

Its this loveliness that radiated from the beautiful Eilish and can be described in part as physical authenticity. While the norm-defying left tries to define authenticity as a persons identity or whims or feelings, they miss the point of what is truly authentic. They miss the natural beauty of humankind, which manifests when image-bearers of the Creator practice self-control without the undue concealment of their imperfections nor their sexual appeal.

Its in this practical expression of beauty that both the left and the fundamentalist right can pendulum swing so far as to meet on the other side in a full circle. While the left tends to suppress beauty so as not to conform to a patriarchal standard of sex appeal, the fundamentalist religious right tends to react to sexualization with an elevation of the frumpy and androgynous under the banner of modesty.

Thus while many on the left reject conventional beauty standards (often calling them constructs) and desperately try to fit in by standing out and defying norms, the rights disdain for luxury and indulgence can lead them to the same rejection of the beautiful. A religious skepticism of allure and desire can produce a different kind of objectification that leads faithful women to feel that their God-given sexuality is actually a curse.

When we reject these two extremes, we find freedom in the middle. There is freedom in stepping confidently into your natural hair and skin, just as theres satisfaction in hygiene and grooming. Theres freedom in embracing the beauty of a healthy lifestyle, in accepting both the power and responsibility of human sexuality, and in preserving and cultivating beauty in ourselves and others.

Scripture tells us inner beauty is more important than outer because the latter is fleeting, but that doesnt mean God thinks little of physical beauty. If He did, He probably wouldnt have made galaxies, flora, and fauna well never ever see for his own good pleasure. When He created the world and all thats in it, He called it good. He considered it lovely.

Dont let social movements and ugly attitudes shame you for pursuing and appreciating beauty. Its not an unrealistic standard. Its exactly what we were created to be.

See the original post here:

Girls, It's OK To Be Beautiful - The Federalist

It has been two years since the world first noticed people were getting sick and dying from a novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. As the seriousness of the disease became more apparent, policymakers around the world struggled with how to respond.

Eventually, many leaders settled on policies of draconian lockdowns and restrictions in an effort to stop the spread of the virus. As these restrictions dragged on for months and years, some leaders trimmed their sails; some changed course completely. But most policy makers failed to keep in mind the fundamental axiom of governing, most pithily stated by Thomas Sowell: there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.

Now it is becoming clear that most of the policies they chose, like all policy choices, were not consequence-free. Sadly, Americas school children appear to have borne the brunt of their choices.

Politico and other outlets have reported on the disaster of learning loss resulting from pandemic school closures. Unfortunately, this learning loss is concentrated in minority communities that could least afford to suffer these consequences as I, my rocket-scientist brother, and countless others can attest, education is the key to escaping poverty.

The American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health, specifically noting an increase in suicide attempts, as well as soaring rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, loneliness, and suicidality that will have lasting impacts on them, their families, and their communities.

I have been warning the American public about these devastating effects on our children for the better part of two years now. Early in the pandemic, it was obvious to anyone who actually sat down and looked at the data, rather than acting on fear and propaganda, that children were not at risk from this virus nearly to the degree that adults were, never mind older adults with comorbidities, who are overwhelmingly the victims of the disease.

We also knew early on that online learning is not as effective as learning in the classroom. We knew children would disappear from the school system if we went virtual, particularly in minority and underserved communities. We knew that mask mandates, quarantines, and mandatory social distancing would be harmful. Now we have more data proving all of this to be true.

I welcome outfits like Politico and The New York Times recognizing that policies seeking to halt the spread of an airborne virus have had lifelong negative consequences for American children. But that does not absolve them of their responsibility for bringing these consequences about.

For motivations both noble and base, leftist corporate media was a loud, constant cheerleader for the most draconian of Covid responses. From the start of the pandemic, the public health bureaucracy, liberal politicians, and the left in general spread fear, confusion, and lies about the risks of Covid and the consequences of pursuing their lockdown and eradication approach.

At every turn, the leftist media was there cheering them on and helping them squash dissent. For example, when several prominent doctors and scientists authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for protecting the vulnerable but otherwise trying to minimize Covids disruption of everyday life, the architects of our failed response enlisted allies in the media, such as The Washington Post, to discredit the proposal.

Other ideological commitments, such as the unjustified faith that teachers unions have the interests of students at heart, also drove the medias coverage. One thing we have seen in the pandemic is that many teachers unions care about teachers and pursue their desires (especially the desires of the loudest fringes), rather than caring about students.

Indeed, in many areas the teachers unions are the ones who insisted that school go entirely virtual, and resisted with all their will any attempts to resume in-person education. Just recently the Chicago teachers union refused to show up to teach in person, claiming that the risk of Covid was too great. (Would these same teachers be so sanguine if the people responsible for keeping their grocery store shelves stocked acted the same way?).

There, every step of the way, was leftist corporate media, playing up the risks of Covid always while studiously avoiding discussion of how those risks are focused in a relatively small subset of the population and downplaying the risks, now realized, of virtual learning.

Despite the incredible costs these policy makers and pundits imposed on our children, all is not lost. The American people appear to be realizing, slowly, that bureaucrats act in the interests of bureaucrats, not the public, and that unions act in the interests of unions, not the public.

The mass exodus from states that continue to choose restriction over freedom is happening for a reason. The mass exodus from public schools is happening for a reason. Ultimately, Americans always choose liberty over tyranny.

Dr. Ben Carson served as the 17th secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is the founder and chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute.

See the rest here:

Finally Noticing Lockdowns Are Killing Kids Does Not Absolve The Left - The Federalist

Nearly half of Democrats would favor rounding up those who have declined to get the Covid shot into camps, according to a recent poll.

The survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute investigated Democrat and Republican voters views on Covid-related issues and asked whether they would approve of various punishments for unvaccinated Americans.The poll found that 45 percent of Democrats approve of placing the unvaccinated in designated facilities.

Additionally, a majority (59 percent) of Democrats supported putting the unvaccinated under effective house arrest, while nearly half (47 percent) wanted to see a government tracking program for the vaccine-hesitant.

Forty-eight percent of Democrats surveyed approved of government fines or imprisonment for those who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines online, and almost three in 10 Democrat respondents (29 percent) said they would support separating unvaccinated parents from their children.

These astounding results fit right in with Democrats historical track record of threatening to limit the freedom of their political adversaries, including taking legal action against them.

Democrats determination to treat the unvaccinated as a lesser class of citizens who post a threat to America up to signaling support for placing unvaccinated Americans in designated facilities recalls Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelts decision to place thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps between 1942 and 1945. Eighty years later, the Democrat party still wishes to ostracize those whom they consider a threat, to the point of being open to confining and silencing political adversaries.

The polls revelation that nearly half of Democrats approve of fining or imprisoning Americans who publicly raise doubt about Covid vaccines also continues a long Democrat tradition of seeing to silence opposition. Even before the Biden White House colluded with Big Tech platforms to silence dissidents, the Democratic National Committee platform called for targeting citizens First Amendment rights in seeking to overturn the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The courts Citizens United ruling came after the conservative group was blocked from publishing a film about Hillary Clinton which cast the Democrat presidential candidate in a negative light. The court ruled in favor of Citizens United, deeming that the Federal Election Commissions blocking of the film infringed on Citizens Uniteds First Amendment rights.Since then, Democrats have decried the decision and sought its reversal.

Additionally, Democrats have campaigned on other drastic authoritarian measures like taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens and defunding local police. Americans clearly enumerated freedoms mean nothing to Democrats who believe their agenda trumps everything else.

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

Read more:

Nearly Half Of Democrats Support Putting Unvaxxed Americans In Camps - The Federalist

Fifth Avenue in New York City was a moving sight on Friday as thousands of law enforcement officers gathered for the funeral of 22-year-old NYPD cop Jason Rivera. Rivera, who was posthumously promoted to detective during Fridays service, was killed in the line of duty while responding to a call in Harlem last week.

Riveras partner Wilbert Mora also died following the ambush, after undergoing two surgeries and remaining on life support for four days. Mora, whose organ donations saved five lives, will be honored with a funeral next Wednesday.

Outside the funeral service for Rivera in St. Patricks Cathedral on Friday, law enforcement officers braved the snow to stand together in Riveras honor, filling Fifth Avenue in an awe-inspiring display.

The outpouring of support is especially striking after the last year and a half of intensified antagonism against police. Last week, the FBI reported that intentional killings of law enforcement officers were at a 20-year high. Excluding the law enforcement personnel killed on 9/11, the recent numbers are the highest since 1995.

Riveras 22-year-old widow, Dominique Luzuriaga, offered a moving eulogy and recounted that she and her husband had fought the day he died.

We left your apartment, and because I didnt want to continue to argue, I ordered an Uber. You asked me, if Are you sure you dont want me to take you home? It might be the last ride I give you. I said, no. And that was probably the biggest mistake I ever made, she said.

Later that day I received the call I wish none of you that are sitting here with me will ever receive. I saw two police officers were shot in Harlem. I immediately texted you and asked you, Are you OK. Please tell me you are OK. I know you are mad right now, but just text me you are OK. Just tell me you are busy. I get no response, she continued. And this time I felt something wasnt right.

Luzuriaga also directed frustration at Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, saying, The system continues to fail us. We are not safe anymore, not even members of service. I know you were tired of these laws, especially from ones from the new DA.

I hope he is watching you speak through me right now. Im sure all of our blue family is tired too, but I promise your death wont be in vain, she said. Well take the watch from here.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

See the rest here:

WATCH: Thousands Fill NYC Streets To Honor Slain Cop Jason Rivera - The Federalist

Left-wing comedian Bill Maher voiced Americas frustration over anti-science mask mandates, and it sent Whoopi Goldberg and her The View co-hosts spinning.

The Real Time with Bill Maher host echoed the exhaustion many Americans have felt about elites insistence on perpetuating a neverending pandemic.

This, its just gone on too long. Nobody cares anymore, Maher said on Friday. I dont want to live in a paranoid world anymore, your mask-paranoid world Its silly now. You know, you mask, you have to have a card, you have to have a booster, they scan your head like youre a cashier and Im a bunch of bananas. Im not bananas, you are!

While Maher spoke the mind of many Americans who are desperate for an end to the paranoia and precautions surrounding Covid, Whoopi Goldberg and her co-hosts slammed his comments on The View on Monday.Goldberg called Mahers segment insensitive and bizarrely accused him of insinuating that vaccinated Americans are sexually gratified by taking precautions against Covid.

Nobody on the planet really wants to go through this, Goldberg said. This is not something were doing because you know, its sexually gratifying.

She went on to accuse Maher of overlooking the risks Covid poses to children who arent approved for vaccination yet, ignoring the fact that children are at extremely low risk of dying from Covid. How dare you be so flippant, man? she continued.

I dont think were to the post-mask part, chimed in co-host Sara Haines. Kind of like 9/11 with flying, [Covid restrictions are] always gonna be here now, theres a new normal. I may never go indoors to big crowds and ever feel comfortable without a mask.

Goldbergs far-fetched accusations are hardly merited by Mahers comments, which speak for most Americans who are exhausted by paranoia surrounding the virus and the mandates that have emerged from it. Americans are desperate for an end to prolonged mask mandates, while government officials are claiming there is no end in sight.

Last month, during an interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci told ABCs Jonathan Karl that mask-wearing on airplanes will likely continue despite the fact that more than half of Americans are fully vaccinated.

Fauci signaled to Karl that, while he would support vaccine mandates for domestic flights, vaccine mandates dont mean mask-wearing shouldnt still continue.

A vaccine requirement for a person getting on the plane is just another level of getting people to have a mechanism that would spur them to get vaccinated, Fauci said. So I mean, anything that could get people more vaccinated would be welcome.

However, he continued, We want to make sure people keep their masks on. I think the idea of taking masks off, in my mind, is really not something we should even be considering.

Mahers comments raise the question that is on so many Americans minds: When will this end? While coronavirus may dissipate, it is clear that there is no end in sight for the mandates it enabled. Whats more, theobscene reactions from Goldberg and others to occasional rationality from their fellow leftists prove there is deep-seated division in this country that, like mask mandates, isnt going away anytime soon.

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

Visit link:

Watch Bill Maher's Anti-Mask Joke Send 'The View' Hosts Over The Edge - The Federalist

Whether Mitch McConnells boneheaded distinction between African-Americans and Americans was a misstatement or something more sinister, the fact remains: America will not benefit from federalizing its elections.

The narrative that continues to be stoked by the radical left is that states all over the country are actively denying blacks the right to vote and only the federal government can stop it. At the center of this controversy is the oppressive requirement that all voters be required to produce a valid ID, which will disparately affect black voters because everyone knows blacks are more likely than whites to not have an ID.

Joe Bidens risible claims about voting rights are true to what Malcolm X described as the trickery of the white liberal: The history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negroes think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems.

The trickery for todays white liberal is to manufacture racism by creating the narrative that voter ID is racist and will disproportionately harm blacks. Or that limiting the amount of early voting and other measures that increase ballot vulnerability is inherently racist because blacks wont vote unless the federal government prods them to the polls because blacks are so dependent on the federal government.

Not only is this narrative unsupported by facts, this lie covers the truth that Democrats dont want any election laws passed that might catch or stop from voting illegally people Democrats believe will vote Democratincluding voters who dont want to prove they havent voted twice in the same election.

Every black person I know has an ID. Can any supporters of the Freedom To Vote Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act produce black people who tried to vote but were turned away because they did not have a valid photo ID? Thats the rap on Georgia and other states laws requiring all prospective voters to prove who they claim to be as a protection against claims of voter fraud.

The big deal with these state legislatures tightening security measures is allegedly not that the measures are unnecessary, but that they are discriminatory, racist, and targeted to keep blacks from voting. Democrats must believe that blacks arent smart or interested enough to get a photo ID, the central security measure being added to state voting protocols.

For the past year, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi have been Jim Crowing that the Georgia law and others like it are racist since black people are more likely than their white counterparts to not have an ID and therefore be denied their vote (for Democratsbecause, according to Joe Biden, you aint black if you dont vote Democrat). Really?

What is it about being black that makes one less likely to have identification? Seems like a racist sentiment. Assuming that there is a black adult without identification, we are supposed to presume that black voters without IDs would be so intimidated by a requirement to present an ID that they would rather not vote than stop by the local license branch and get an ID for the cost of a Big Mac and a Coke? Most states like Indiana will waive the minimal fee if necessary.

But if Democrats are right, and requiring identification is indeed racist, why are they only making noise about required ID voting? Shouldnt they complain about driving, which would be racist because an ID is required to drive? What about opening a bank account, credit application, or ordering a cell phone, cable and ordinary utilities?

All these would have racist implications daily rather than just on Election Day. Yet theres not a peep about blacks not being able to get a cell phone or cable TV, because that doesnt get the Democrat his votes.

This all leads to the Democrat solution: kill the Senate filibuster. Of course, we are reminded that the filibuster was the procedural tool used by Democrats and Republicans to oppose civil rights legislation. But the use of the tactic that may have been used against what is now viewed as popular legislation does not make the tactic itself racist in its application.

The filibuster has evolved from its initial incarnation to a procedure that provides the minority party or position the opportunity to be heard. Since both parties have often been in the minority, both parties have benefited and suffered from its deployment.

I know it might be painful for them, but perhaps Democrats should open up their playbook and remember what they did to intimidate and suppress black voters in the first half of the 20th century.

It is unnerving that the Democrat Party draws comparisons to its champions of segregation Bull Connor and George Wallace suggesting that voter ID is a discriminatory tool, the same as the poll tax or the literacy test, that actually prevented blacks from voting in a notoriously humiliating manner. Such comparisons are a disgrace to the honored memory of all who fought and won victories in securing the right to vote.

In the continued invocation of Jim Crow, the euphemism for the abhorrent laws that legally sanctioned segregation, discrimination, and brutality, Biden and his race-baiting big government aim to racialize the filibuster so that all who support its continued use are brandished racist forevermore. I hope blacks in this nation are wearing thin to the leftist patronization that denigrates the proud history of black and white patriots who fought, bled, and died for freedom, independence, and our opportunity to vote.

Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

See the rest here:

No, Requiring Voter ID Is Not 'Jim Crow 2.0' And It's Offensive To Say That - The Federalist