Category Archives: Federalist

Were in another cycle of erstwhile social progressives publicly rebuking ideas they once embraced. This brutal honesty is laudable.

For hedge funder Bill Ackman, the soul searching began after Oct. 7. For Bill Maher, it seemed to begin at some point during the Donald Trump presidency and lockdowns, as elite hatred for the president accelerated and amplified illiberal tendencies on the left.

This trend is fueled at least in part by further leftward movement in the Democratic Party. Maher, of course, literally hosted a show called Politically Incorrect years ago, when his views were more fashionable in liberal circles. The classic I didnt leave the party, the party left me explanation accounts for some of this. But not all.

At its heart, the question is whether people bothered by extreme trans ideology, border policy, critical race theory, and more oppose this extremism on a premise that undermines their broader worldviews.

Maher and Ackman are two particularly interesting case studies because its worth questioning whether either Bill is willing to follow his own logic to its uncomfortable conclusion. Much of what weve been quickly conditioned to accept is the radical fruit of moral relativism, not merely political correctness or DEI run amuck.

Earlier this month, Maher said on his program that wokeness started as a great thing and morphed into something else. Ackman backed Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., for president, then questioned him during a Spaces conversation on X about diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Phillips said some reasonable things about equality of opportunity. He even took a reference to DEI off his website and explained, Am I being educated by Mr. Ackman and many others on both sides of this issue and every other one? Yes.

Ive been learning from so many people over the last two months about a lot of things I wasnt aware of, Phillips contended.

Ackman suggested Phillips didnt understand what DEI was when that was made part of his website. He added, I made the same mistake. But even during his clean-up efforts, Phillips explicitly told CNN he believes in equity.

As recently as 2019, Phillips co-sponsored the Equality Act, one of the most radical pieces of legislation the House has ever considered. His congressional campaign website still brags about his support for the bill.

Inez Stepman, a senior fellow at the Independent Womens Center and Federalist contributor, analyzed the legislation in the Wall Street Journal.

The Equality Act would threaten the existence of womens prisons, public-school girls locker rooms, and womens and girls sports teams, she explained. It would limit freedom of speech, freedom of association, accurate data collection, and scientific inquiry. It would threaten the rights of physicians who doubt the wisdom of performing life-changing, reproduction-limiting procedures, and parents who seek to protect their minor children from such treatment.

For what its worth, honest proponents of the bill deny none of this. These sweeping changes are their goal.

Ackman pledged $1,000,000 to Phillips presidential bid. If both men are genuinely troubled by censorship, attacks on Title IX, and parental rights, they should actively rebuke this bill, which Democrats use as a major talking point.

Its not about just this one piece of legislation. The Equality Act is meant as a catchall for the lefts approach to sex and gender and, indeed, equality as a legal concept. Its a helpful proxy for the broader ideology.

I dont mean to suggest staunch defenders of Western thought who, for example, support lifting restrictions on same-sex marriage or believe abortion should be legal or oppose harsh border security are bad or categorically wrong when they side with the left over the right. (As a woman, I generally enjoy access to voting and crediteven if it means I pull the lever for people with kind eyes and buy 30 percent of what Instagram advertises to me.) It is, however, worth considering how many truly radical positions have quickly become norms.

The absurdities of 2020 made this easy for some centrists and leftists to see, as did the fallout from Oct. 7 in campuses and media. Norms went from shifting over centuries to decades to years.

Its the decades that caught us off guard. Changes in a lifetime feel slow relative to changes between presidential election cycles. In the sweep of human history, theyre not. But if you are one of the people who was wrong not to oppose trans ideology or DEI or ESG in 2010despite the trends being obvious back in 2010have you corrected fully for those biases that prevented clarity at the time?

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyings book, A Hunter Gatherers Guide To The 21st Century, put a lot of this change in perspective.

In the West, at least, moral relativism was gradually mainstreamed as technology falsely undermined more and more peoples faith in the Judeo-Christian God and the system of ethics that sprang forth after Christ. But, as Tom Holland documented in Dominion, Christ is not an optional aspect of the Western values virtually everyone holds dear, even if weve taken those values for granted so long that their wellspring faded into the background.

This shift happened within the lifetimes of people still alive. Politicos recent faceplant over Christian nationalism made this clear enough. The Founders vision for freedom of religion allowed enormous tolerance, but it did not pretend to establish that all religious traditions were morally equal. Without a belief humans are endowed by our Creator, the rights we all cherish do not logically follow.

Some honest non-believers today make reasonable arguments that Point A isnt the only route to Point B. For a while, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was among them, until after Oct. 7 she announced Dominion had helped convert her to Christianity.

Its not crazy, of course, to disagree with Holland or Ali. Whats crazy is for people who cherish American freedoms to dismiss offhand that our system of natural rights is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That doesnt mean every patriotic American needs to believe in God, but it does mean the people disturbed by the arc of cultural leftism should question why it upsets them. Is it because men and women are different and truth is not relative? Is it because equality of outcomes leads to racism and racism is hatred and hatred is bad? Maybe because free speech is just and justice is good? For many people, myself included, these questions lead us down a surprising path.

Standing by the Equality Act and equity might help centrist Democrats win elections in the short term, but its not a path to the long-term restoration of a healthy society. It will not make people physically or mentally better off in the future. It will keep us in purgatory, cycling through a holding pattern like Groundhog Day.

The effect of asking these questions is kind of like turning on your fog lights.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of Federalist Radio Hour. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young Americas Foundation. Shes interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including Fox News Sunday, Media Buzz, and The McLaughlin Group. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center, co-host of the weekly news show Counter Points: Friday and a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Go here to see the original:

Disenchanted Democrats Should Be Asking Deeper Questions - The Federalist

Pop star Olivia Rodrigo handed out free Plan B pills, provided by the Missouri Abortion Fund, to fans at the St. Louis stop on her GUTS World Tour.

In addition to the free abortifacient at her concert, Missouri fans received cards that read Funding abortion? Its a good idea, right? a play on her song, bad idea right?

No, Olivia, its quite a bad idea to promote killing preborn children to a largely adolescent, female fanbase.

Rodrigo follows the trend of Gen Z celebrities and influencers whose politics are engrained in their public image. For the Good 4 U singer, her dying hill is abortion access.

Rodrigo, in partnership with the National Network of Abortion Funds, created the Fund 4 Good, a global initiative committed to building an equitable and just future for women and girls through direct support of community-based non-profits that champion girls education, support reproductive rights and prevent gender-based violence, according to the sites homepage.

What kind of message does this send to girls by saying the only way to an equitable and just future is to destroy the exclusively female ability to create life?

After every show, the Vampire singer encourages fans to donate to the fund. A portion of the proceeds from all ticket sales also go towards abortion access.

Despite isolating an entire portion of the fan base who believe that womens rights start in the womb, this move is unsurprising as the 21-year-old has an outspoken past in abortion advocacy.

At her Washington, D.C. stop on the 2022 Sour Tour, a then 19-year-old Rodrigo seemed to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the overturning of Roe v. Wade did.

Because were in D.C. I want to say Im heartbroken after whats happened here this week about the Supreme Courts potential decision to overturn abortion. Our bodies should never be in the hands of politicians, I hope we can raise our voices to protect our right, to have a safe abortion.

Although overturning Roe v. Wade did not take away the constitutionally nonexistent right to abortion, the singer did not hold back from trashing conservative Supreme Court justices and dedicating her rendition of F**k You to them at the 2022 Glastonbury Music Festival.

In addition to urging her largely underage fanbase to support murder in the womb, the singer has also used her platform to encourage getting the Covid vaccine and boosters, making her a Biden-administration darling.

Olivia Rodrigo, a California native, got her start in acting with a breakout role in the Disney+ High School Musical reboot TV series. Since then, she went on to release the critically acclaimed 2021 album Sour, which secured her a Grammy for Best New Artist. Her 2023 sophomore follow-up, GUTS is met with equal praise. She laments through ballads and pop-rock songs the plights of teenage girlhood.

Update: Abortion funds are no longer being used to provide concertgoers with free Plan B.Variety reportsthat Rodrigos team told the abortion organizations they are no longer allowed to provide the abortifacient due to widespread media attention. The organizations are also no longer allowed to hand out condoms and lubrication. Jade Hurley, communications manager for the DC Abortion Fund, claimed that Rodrigos team and the National Network of Abortion Funds made this decision because children are present at the concerts, despite the well-known fact that children would be present at theevent beforehand.

Elise McCue is a former intern at The Federalist and student majoring in multimedia journalism and professional and technical writing. She also reports on the Southwest Virginia music scene for The Roanoke Times. You can follow her on twitter @elisemccue or contact her at mccueelise@gmail.com

Excerpt from:

Olivia Rodrigo Hands Out Free Morning-After Pills To Teen Fans - The Federalist

Biden delivered his annual State of the Union address one week ago, but considering the state of our union is abysmal, polls show voters werent impressed.

Four of the five polls conducted since Bidens fiery appearance show the White House failed to make up lost ground after the president sought to reassure voters who are concerned, among other things, about the 81-year-old being too mentally and physically fragile to lead.

According to a Forbes/HarrisX poll of more than 2,000 registered voters from March 8-10, 59 percent said Bidens speech did more to divide than unify America, compared to 41 percent who said otherwise.

Just 37 percent of those surveyed approve of Bidens job as president, which is one point below his aggregate approval rating maintained by FiveThirtyEight. When asked whether respondents would cast their vote for Biden or his 2024 rival, former President Donald Trump, if the election were held today, Trump had a five-point lead, 41 to 46 percent, well beyond the surveys 2.2 percent margin of error. Of the independent respondents, 44 percent selected Trump while only 29 percent went with Biden.

In contrast to Bidens performance, Trump and former President Barack Obama saw post-speech bumps in their respective 2015, 2016, and 2018 State of the Union addresses, according to Gallup.

The issue facing our nation isnt how old we are; its how old are our ideas, Biden said from the center of the House chamber last week. Hate, anger, revenge, retribution are the oldest of ideas. But you cant lead America with ancient ideas that only take us back.

The presidents speech, however, opened with threats to the Supreme Court and claims that the regimes political opponents are existential threats to democracy, which only alienated voters. In fact, Trump, who faces 88 state and federal charges as Democrats seek to bar their chief rival from the ballot this fall, continues to perform better than Biden on most national polls. Meanwhile, Americans, remain anxious about the southern border, the deteriorating economy, and global turmoil, all presided over by a leader with a floundering memory.

The propaganda press, however, celebrated Bidens joint election-year address. In their telling, the elderly presidents speech restored his public image and proved hes energetic and ready to lead for another four years.

Biden stares down questions about his age and fitness for office with spirit, headlined coverage by NBC.

The medias coverage of Bidens age needs a rethink, suggested Vox.

The New York Times couldnt cram enough fawning descriptors into its News Analysis: forceful, confrontational, pumped up, defiant and feisty, and commanding and energized.

Moments after the president stepped down from the podium, however, Fox News Chief Political Analyst Brit Hume suggested otherwise. Americans, Hume said, saw little more than an angry old man.

Voters didnt like the State of the Union address as much as reporters did, wrote James Freeman in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

Read the original post:

Poll Shows Biden Bombed State Of The Union Address - The Federalist

A member of the Georgia State Election Board (SEB) participated in and voted on cases involving counties that he was a registered lobbyist for, The Federalist has learned.

In Georgia, members of the State Election Board are required to avoid any appearance of conflict and/or impropriety, according to the boards Code of Conduct. In fact, members are expected to recuse themselves from any matter before the SEB in which the member or members employer has provided services to a respondent, complainant, or witness.

Georgia law also prohibits members of state boards from engag[ing] in any business with the government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

However, it appears SEB member Edward Lindsey voted on matters brought before the board involving DeKalb and Cobb Counties. Both counties appear to have contracted with a law firm where Lindsey is a registered lobbyist, according to lobbyist disclosure reports.

Disclosure reports also list the DeKalb County government and Cobb County government among Lindseys direct lobbying clients, but when asked to confirm that fact, Lindsey did not give a direct answer. Instead, he told The Federalist I have in the past taken the position regarding the counties in question that since the counties election operations were governed by law by an independent County Election Board which my firm does not represent that there was no conflict.

Lindsey was appointed to serve on the SEB by Georgias Republican-controlled House of Representatives in January 2022 and is up for re-confirmation in the coming weeks. Prior to his appointment, he served as the Georgia House majority whip from 2010-2013.

According to Georgia lobbyist registration and disclosure reports, not only is Lindsey registered as a lobbyist for the governments of DeKalb and Cobb Counties, hes also a lobbyist for Dentons US LLP, a global law and lobbying firm. According to its website, Lindsey is a partner in Dentons Public Policy practice and serves as the head of the Firms Georgia State Government Affairs team.

Documents reviewed by The Federalist show that DeKalb County first contracted with Dentons in January 2018, and has paid the firm $1.2 million to date. In December 2023, the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners requested the countys Purchasing & Contracting Department extend DeKalbs contract with Dentons to Dec. 31, 2024, which would pay the firm an additional sum of up to $240,000.

The Federalist also obtained a contract proposal between Cobb County and Dentons. Cobb County paid $60,000 to retain Dentons in 2023, according to OpenSecrets.

Despite these ties, Lindsey has declined to recuse himself from some matters involving the aforementioned counties that have been brought before the State Election Board. On Oct. 3, 2023, for instance, the SEB heard a case pertaining to a complaint filed against DeKalb County over several election-related issues, such as late poll openings and poor practices surrounding absentee ballot tabulation. Investigators alleged that DeKalbs election board and former elections director Erica Hamilton violated state law.

During the meeting, Lindsey made a motion for a technical violation with a letter of instruction to DeKalb County, saying to the DeKalb respondents: I do understand what you guys were going through.

Similar to what Ive done before. I dont see a reason to send this to the [attorney general], Lindsey said. It looks like you guys are doing what you are fixing the problem. I think it is a technical violation. So well send I make a motion for a finding of a technical violation with a letter of instruction to DeKalb County.

The board ultimately voted to send a letter of instruction to DeKalbs election board and referred Hamilton to the attorney generals office. More recently, Lindsey presided over a case involving Cobb County last month.

In a statement to The Federalist, Lindsey said, If a claim involves a direct allegation against a client of our firm, I have in the past and will in the future recuse myself.

If, however it involves merely an individual in a county or an independent entity separate from our client given the nature of our representation, I have not recused myself, Lindsey said. I have to look at the particulars of the matter involved. I think in the end I have been fair and tried to be judicious in this regard.

A deeper dive into Lindseys background reveals that the SEB member also previously lobbied on behalf of the National Vote at Home Coalition, which, according to InfluenceWatch, works to lobby for the nationwide adoption of a mail-balloting system through the regulatory and legislative processes. The group revealed plans in its 2019 annual report to expand the use and acceptance of vote-from-home policies during the 2020 election, and enjoys ties to several left-wing organizations, including Rock the Vote and Democracy Fund.

The National Vote at Home Institute also gifted $35,104 to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergers office in 2020, according to the groups tax filings.

The organizations interference in the 2020 election was much more expansive. According to InfluenceWatch, National Vote At Home CEOAmber McReynoldsprovided consulting to various state- and county-level governments on implementing mail-in ballots, and, as Time Magazine reported, was in frequent communication with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the months leading up to the contest.

Georgia adopted several of Vote at Homes key recommendations, including a new online portal for voters to request absentee ballots, expanded absentee ballot drop boxes, ballot tracking so that voters can follow their ballots progress and, crucially, a rule change that allowed county election workers to begin processing absentee ballots 15 days before Election Day, the Time report reads.

The Center for Renewing America filed an IRS complaint against the group and the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) in September 2022, alleging the organizations engaged in a partisan electioneering schemeto boost Joe Biden in the 2020 election. The IRS did not disclose whether it has acted on the complaint when The Federalist probed the agency over the matter in September 2023.

Lindsey has used his position on the State Election Board to protect the states mail-in voting policies. Last month, he helped defeat (3-2) a proposed SEB resolution that would have sent a recommendation to the state legislature to repeal no-excuse mail-in balloting. Lindsey was joined in his opposition to the measure by the boards sole Democrat appointee and Chairman John Fervier, who was appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp.

Lindsey previously supported the switch to no-excuse absentee voting during his time in the Georgia General Assembly, according to the Georgia Recorder.

DeKalb County one of Lindseys clients has also been a major proponent of mail-in voting policies. Last year, the locality accepted a $2 million grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) as part of its membership with the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, an $80 millionventureby left-wing nonprofitsto systematically influence every aspect of election administration and advance Democrat-backed voting policies such as mail-in balloting in local election offices. The Alliance was launched by CTCL in April 2022 and seeks to build upon CTCLs 2020 Zuckbucks scheme.

Its worth mentioning that Lindsey has regularly penned op-eds in CNN decrying concerns about election integrity issues in Georgia.

While Georgia Republicanspassed a law (SB 202)in March 2021 banning the private funding of local election offices, DeKalb officials used a loophole in the statute to justify accepting the grant from the Alliance. Instead of having their election office accept the funds, DeKalb officials had the countys finance department apply for the grant. As Democrat and DeKalb Board of Registration and Elections Chair Dele Lowman Smithadmitted, this was done since election offices are not allowed to receive grants directly, Decaturish.com explained.

While Georgia Republicans fast-tracked a law (SB 222) closing the loophole, the final version of the bill signed by Kemp was not as strong as the one originally introduced. According to CNN, the House Rules Committee jettisoned a provision included in the initial draft of the bill that would have forced DeKalb County to return the $2 million grant to CTCL.

Lindsey told The Federalist he did not lobby the Georgia General Assembly to strike the language from SB 222 seeking to force DeKalb County to return the $2 million grant to CTCL.

The countys acceptance of the grant prompted DeKalb County GOP Chair Marci McCarthy to file a complaint with the SEB on Feb. 5. 2023. She alleged the DeKalb elections department circumvented the spirit of SB 202. Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), an election integrity legal group, filed a similar complaint.

On Monday, McCarthy sent an email to Raffensperger, Georgias election board, and House Speaker Jon Burns, in which she inquired about the status of her and RITEs complaints. She also claimed that Raffensperger told her colleague in the election integrity movement who inquired [about] the status of the complaints that they have been dismissed.

When asked if a report of investigation had been issued, Secretary Raffenspergers response was that his office did not issue reports,' the email reads.

Georgia State Election Board Paralegal Alexandra Hardin told The Federalist that an investigation into the allegations raised in McCarthys complaint is still pending and open, and findings have yet to be presented to the board.

Burns did not respond to The Federalists request for comment on whether he still plans to move forward with Lindseys re-confirmation, given these revelations. He also did not say whether hes concerned about Lindseys objectivity as a SEB member on matters involving his clients.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

View original post here:

GA Election Board Member Voted On Cases Involving His Clients - The Federalist

Oklahomas Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting in elections.

HB 3156 stipulates that [n]o election conducted by the State Election Board, a county election board, or any municipality authorized to conduct elections in Oklahoma shall use ranked choice voting, ranked voting, proportional ranked voting, preferential voting, or instant runoff voting. The measure passed in a 63-16 vote, with Republican Rep. Marcus McEntire and 15 Democrats opposing.

The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voters second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

HB 3156 would additionally nullify any existing or future ordinance approved by a local government authorizing the use of ranked-choice voting. Elections conducted using the system would also be moot.

Should a locality violate that provision, the secretary of the Oklahoma Elections Board would have the authority to bring a civil action in an appropriate court for such declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to enforce the law. Oklahomas Senate president pro tempore and House speaker may also do so jointly.

While no Oklahoma locality currently uses RCV for elections, according to Oklahoma Watch, bill sponsor and Republican Rep. Eric Roberts previously said HB 3156 is necessary to preserve the simplicity and timeliness of our current elections, along with our current ease in doing hand recounts when needed.

Ranked-choice voting makes voting more confusing and has delayed election results everywhere it has been tried, Roberts said. GOP Sen. Brent Howard is also a sponsor of the measure.

Various U.S. municipalities that have adopted RCV have experienced confusing and eveninaccurate election outcomes. In an Oakland school board race, for instance, election officials announced two months after the fact thatthey got the count wrong, resulting in the rightful winner suingfor his seat.Meanwhile, a Utah town that used an RCV pilot program for its 2021 municipal elections experienced high rates of ballots being discarded or spoiled.

In the Genola City Council Race 1, forexample, 58% of ballots were either discarded out of hand or otherwise spoiled, while the Genola City Council Race 2 had a discarded or spoiled rate of over 74%.

Astudypublished by the Foundation for Government Accountability last year found that RCV ballots are often discarded due to ballot exhaustion, a term used to describe when voters select only one candidate on their ballot, and those ballots are tossed becausetheir first choice didnt win a majority in the first round. In Alaskas 2022 special congressional election, for example, more than 11,000 exhausted ballots were thrown out because those electors voted for only one Republican candidate and no one else.

RCV has also been shown to produce election results that appear to contradict the desires of voters. Democrat Mary Peltolawon the aforementioned 2022 Alaska special congressional race even though nearly 60 percent of voters [cast] their ballots for a Republican. A similar scenario played out in a 2018 Maine congressional race, in which then-incumbent GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquinlostto Democrat Jared Golden despite Poliquin winning the most votes in the first round of voting.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law by GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma would become the sixth state to ban the use of RCV. Other jurisdictionsthat have prohibited the system include Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, Montana, and South Dakota.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Here is the original post:

GOPers Pass Bill To Keep OK Free Of Ranked-Choice Voting Chaos - The Federalist

The nerve center of the federal governments censorship operations admitted ahead of the 2020 election that mass mail-in voting comes with risks but flagged online posts highlighting such insecurities to Big Tech companies for censorship anyway.

A series of internal documents obtained via open records request by America First Legal (AFL) show that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, was aware of the risks associated with unsupervised mail-in voting in the months leading up to the 2020 election. It was during this same time that the agency was classifying social media posts highlighting these risks as disinformation and flagging them for censorship.

The communications unearthed by AFL reveal that by September 2020, CISA officials knew there was no evidence to support the claim that in-person voting increase[d] the spread of COVID-19 and were aware that mass vote-by-mail schemes presented difficulties to election officials. Among the major challenges highlighted by the agency were the process of mailing and returning ballots, high numbers of improperly completed ballots, and the shortage of personnel to process ballots in a prompt manner.

By October 2020, CISA had crafted a six-point list titled, Mail-In Voting Risk: Infrastructure and Process, which detailed insecurities present in mass mail-in voting operations and offered compensating controls election officials could use to manage them.

One of these risks is that Inbound mail-in ballot processes and tabulation take longer than in-person processing, causing tabulation of results to occur more slowly and resulting in more ballots to tabulate following election night. Under the compensating controls section accompanying that specific issue, CISA noted that Election officials, media, candidates, and NGOs are educating voters and setting the expectation that it will take days, if not weeks, to determine the outcome of many races.

Recall that it took several days after the Nov. 3, 2020, contest before Joe Biden was declared the winner. This was in large part due to states such as Pennsylvania and Nevada still counting ballots days after Election Day.

But it wasnt just CISA officials who were informed of such risks. An Oct. 30, 2020, email indicates the agency shared the aforementioned concerns regarding mail-in voting with members of the corporate press during an unclassified media tour that same day.

Rather than report this information to the American public, self-professed news organizations such as The Washington Post which had staff attend the tour published articles in the days following the Oct. 30 briefing dismissing mail-in ballotings many liabilities and praising CISA for its independence from [President Donald] Trump.

Officials including Krebs have also scrupulously avoided criticizing or even explicitly correcting Trumps unfounded attacks on the elections legitimacy even as their own assessments oftendirectly contradicthis statements about the security of mail ballots and other topics, the Posts Joseph Marks wrote.

Despite its own admission that mail-in voting presented challenges and potential hazards to effective election administration, CISA worked extensively to compel Big Tech platforms to censor posts underscoring such points leading up to the 2020 election. According to AFL, the agency contracted consulting firm Deloitte to report on Daily Social Media Trends relating to the U.S. Election including narratives relating to Vote-By-Mail and to flag specific social media posts for CISAs awareness and attention.

Included in the posts Deloitte sent to CISA was an Oct. 30, 2020, tweet issued by Trump, in which the then-president claimed there were Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Deloitte also flagged a post from an unnamed conservative pundit who, as the consulting firm described, accused Twitter of SUPPRESSING a story about the Democratic presidential nominees son to help the nominee win the election.

That post was in reference to Big Techs censorship of the New York Posts Hunter Biden laptop story. OnTwitter (now known as X), users were not permitted to share the story, even via direct message. The platform further removed links and issued alerts that it may be unsafe. Meanwhile, Facebookannouncedshortly after the story broke that it would be reducing [the storys] distribution pending verification by third-party fact-checkers.

Despite having authenticated the laptop in late 2019, the FBI was also heavily involved in these platforms suppression of the story.

CISAs use of Deloitte to flag so-called disinformation online further confirms the findings unearthed in aninterim reportreleased by House Republicans in November. According to that analysis, CISA along with the State DepartmentsGlobal Engagement Center (GEC) colluded with Stanford University to pressure Big Tech companies into censoring what they claimed was disinformation during the 2020 election. At the heart of this operation was theElection Integrity Partnership (EIP), a consortium of disinformation academics spearheaded by the Stanford Internet Observatory that coordinated with DHS and GEC to monitor and censor Americans online speech ahead of the 2020 contest.

[RELATED:State Of Texas Joins The Federalist, Daily Wire In Suing The Federal Censorship-Industrial Complex]

Created at the request of CISA, EIP allowed federal officials to launder [their] censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny. As documented in the interim report, this operationaimedto censor true information, jokes and satire, and political opinions and submitted flagged posts from prominent conservative figures to Big Tech companies for censorship. Among those targeted were The Federalists Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Read this article:

CISA Admitted 'Risks' Of Vote-By-Mail In Internal Docs From 2020 - The Federalist

Democrats who want to stifle oversight and regulation of Big Fertility introduced legislation this month to protect the multi-billion-dollar assisted reproductive technology (ART) industry and punish states and health institutions that try to limit third-party child manufacturing.

Democrats Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Patty Murray, and Rep. Susan Wild introduced the Access To Family Building Act (AFBA) under the guise of protecting in vitro fertilization (IVF) for hopeful parents. In reality, the legislation seeks to ensure the unlimited creation and destruction of healthy eggs, sperm, and most importantly embryos in all 50 states by punishing any entity that tries to unduly restrict access to a range of reproductive technologies.

Duckworths bill refuses to specifically define ART. Instead, it points to Section 8 of the 1992 Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA). which lists all treatments or procedures that include eggs, sperm, and embryos; IVF; and surgical reproduction procedures like gamete and zygote intrafallopian transfer (GIFT and ZIFT) as eligible for protection under the Democrats latest legislation.

The FCSRCA also includes a provision empowering the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand the definition of ART to such other specific technologies as long as he publicizes his intent in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency).

The sweeping and subjective categorizations in the FCSRCA mean that while manufacturing lifelongmotherless and fatherless children, surrogacy, and experimental transhumanist technologieslike artificial wombs,gene editing, and sidelining women in reproduction are not explicitly mentioned in Duckworths bill, they could easily be construed to fit within the parameters of protection.

If passed, Duckworths bill would permit individuals and Big Fertility facilities to sue if any state moves to impose even globally accepted common sense limits on procedures like IVF, surrogacy, and oocyte sales. It would also give President Joe Bidens Department of Justice the justification to pursue action against any state, facility, or individual that tries to limit or regulate the use of past, present, and future babymaking tech.

IVF is responsible for the millions of embryos sitting in frozen storage across the United States and the millions more that, despite the possibility of yielding asuccessful pregnancy, are destroyed during and after the procedure. ART such as preimplantation genetic diagnosisoften yields incorrect resultsand leads topremature disposal of viable embryos. Similarly, embryo freezing reduces the chance of an embryo surviving.

Statistics and science say that fundamentally revamping what it means to be a family or even human harms both women and babies because it sidelines childrens natural right to their natural mother and father to accommodate the desires of adults. Yet its an ideal all ART procedures often promote or aid.

Further, business for the reproduction for all fertility industry is booming and winning over the hearts, minds, and pens of leftist legislators.

Duckworth and Co. tried and failed to get a unanimous consent vote on their Right to Build Families Act in 2022. They also threw their weight behind California Rep. Adam SchiffsEqual Access to Reproductive Care Actwith the hopes of subsidizing ART and commercial surrogacy through a tax break.

Now, more than one and a half years after the Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson decision, Democrats are revivingarguments that states will crack down on Big Fertility in hopes of jamming their legislation through Congress before the 2024 election.

Laws designed to hold the baby manufacturing market accountable remain largely nonexistent, save a few states that ban commercial surrogacy. Yet Duckworth, who conceived a child at 49 years old via IVF, complains that Republicans strong pro-life showing in state legislatures will severely limit their residents right to access basic reproductive carebut also pushing proposals that would jeopardize access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies that millions of Americans need to start or grow their families.

She insists Access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology is a right. Murray similarly quips that Its hard to comprehend GOP attacks on technologies like IVF that help women have MORE childrenuntil you remember: the bottom line for the anti-choice movement is & has always been about control.

Today, anything an adult really wants is conveniently framed as a right, Them Before Us founder Katy Faust told The Federalist. But there is no right to artificially and commercially manufacture children in a laboratory, nor a right to separate them from one or both biological parents, both of which this bill would facilitate.

Outsourcing reproduction is no more a legal or human right than killing unborn babies. Unsurprisingly, the same women touting the AFBA are staunch supporters of abortion who voted in favor of legislation that would have codified ending life in the womb through all nine months of pregnancy.

The baby-making and baby-taking industries that Democrats support are both driven by adults selfish desires, not a childs right to life.

No matter which way you slice it, Democrats latest ART legislation is not protecting womens rights. They are protecting a global business that routinely exploits and profits off of the misfortunes of others.

If you want to talk about legitimate rights, a childs natural right to life and right to be known and loved by the two people responsible for [his or her] existence tops the list, Faust continued. Both child rights would be threatened by this legislation. Neither you, nor I, nor the government should be financially complicit in sacrificing the fundamental rights of children on the altar of adult wants.

As interest in reproductive tech as a means to parenthood skyrockets, ART deserves oversight and regulation. That wont be possible if Duckworths bill passes.

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, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Read the rest here:

Democrat Bill Aims To Stifle Regulation Of Big Fertility Market - The Federalist

On Wednesday, in an email sent to a network of election officials and nonprofit organizations, theCenter for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) announced it would begin efforts to facilitate applications to a massive federal government grant program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This program could potentially funnel more than $700 million to election offices during the 2024 election under the auspices of CTCL officials and their partners in the nonprofit world of left-wing election activism. CTCL is the organization that funneled hundreds of millions of Mark Zuckerbergs dollars into key election offices to increase Democrat turnout in the 2020 election.

CTCL announced in ELECTricity, its regular e-newsletter sent to thousands of election officials who are part of its network, that it will host a webinar on Jan. 25 to assist those officials in applying for FEMAs 2024 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.

According to FEMA, BRIC is intended to support[s] states, local communities, tribes and territories as they undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face from disasters and natural hazards. FEMA states on its website that BRICs available funding is $1 billion (for this grant application cycle), and for Flood Mitigation Assistance, the available funding is $800 million. These funds are intended to help state, local, tribal, and territorial governments address future risks to natural disasters, foster greater community resilience, and reduce disaster suffering.

During the 2021 BRIC grant cycle (the last year for which figures are available), the programs two top project types by total project cost were flood control at $1.39 billion and utility/infrastructure protection at $1.26 billion.

The BRIC program, with total spending expected to amount to $1 billion in 2024, presents a unique funding opportunity for election offices, according to CTCL Communications Manager Andra Abbate in an email obtained by the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute. All previous BRIC grants appear to have been for some form of natural disaster relief.

Nevertheless, CTCL asserts in its email invitation that it will assist election offices in applying for BRIC grants. According to its creative interpretation of the new Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, elections should be classified as a critical service deserving of competitive FEMA grant funding. According to the email, As a core element of government function, elections are a critical service and eligible for this government funding. The webinar plans to cover the application process, and will include sample content, as well as inspiration for what the grant funds can be used for.

CTCL burst into the public spotlight in 2020 with its highly controversial $332 million Covid-19 Response Grant Program (Zuckbucks), which was aimed at gaining control of election offices in areas that were of critical importance to Democrats in the 2020 election through large, strings attached grants to election offices.

CTCL money financed the takeover of election offices at the city and county level by partisan activists and made those offices a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, ballot harvesting efforts, and data-sharing agreements that were favorable to Democrat candidates. Many CTCL-funded election offices then became launching pads for intensive multi-media outreach campaigns and precisely targeted, door-to-door voter turnout and mail-in ballot-chasing efforts in densely populated urban areas packed with potential Democrat voters.

CTCLs interference in the 2020 election gave rise to a host of laws passed by state legislatures to ban the private funding of election administration. As of Dec., 27 states have passed laws that prohibit, limit, or regulate the use of private or philanthropic funding to run elections.

Democrat election activists are nothing if not ingenious, however. By tapping into a huge reservoir of potential federal funding, CTCL and its partners could skirt the prohibitions against private funding of elections, while gaining de facto control over a much larger funding source than could be provided by individual billionaires such as Zuckerberg, all the while using it to mount the same sort of technical, data-driven, and activist-led manipulation of the election system in favor of Democrats that they mounted in 2020.

If election offices are claiming to need extra multimillion-dollar grants on top of their normal public funding sources to the tune of CTCLs $332 million injection of private funding in 2020 (or even more in 2024), it is because they are planning to expand their activities into areas where election offices do not belong. Likely a significant part of the additional funding they will seek will be devoted to the shadowy (and costly) world of high-end data aggregation, statistical analysis, and the implementation of behavioral science solutions to mobilizing potential Democrat voters.

Furthermore, very few if any voter turnout operations are nonpartisan in their effect. An election official who acts to increase voter turnout in a D +40 district will expect, on average, to increase the vote margin of the Democratic candidate by roughly 400 votes for every additional 1,000 votes he encourages, since his actions will yield an average of 700 additional votes for the Democrat candidate and 300 votes for the Republican. Thats not baseless speculation; thats basic statistics. It makes no difference if the content or intent of his actions are nonpartisan.

The purpose of election offices is to maintain the polls and accurately count votes, not to get out the vote in their jurisdictions through leveraging extremely valuable inside information and providing system access to data analysts and partisan election activists to aid in voter canvassing or targeted ballot harvesting.

Lawmakers should be aware that CTCL and its partners in the Democrats shadow partyappear to be up to mischief once again and should subject their relationship with the BRIC grant program, and public election offices in general, to closer scrutiny, with an eye toward eliminating election interference in 2024 by yet another well-funded cabal of election fortifiers.

William Doyle, Ph.D., is research director at The Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the department of economics at the University of Dallas. He can be contacted at doyle@rodneyinstitute.org.

See the article here:

Group Behind 'Zuckbucks' Is Now Meddling In The 2024 Election - The Federalist

Californias Democrat legislators are trying to make discrimination legal again. A bill called ACA7 seeks to go around the states constitutional ban on affirmative action and legalize discrimination. The state Assembly has passed the bill, and it is under consideration in the state Senate.

Californias voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996 with an overwhelming majority. The proposition banned affirmative action in the states Constitution and mandated that California shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Democrats predicted that Prop 209 would have detrimental effects on the minorities in the state. They thought that without racial preference in college admissions, minority students enrollment at the University of California (UC) system would drop significantly.

The Democrats fearmongering didnt come true.Research by Charles L. Geshekter, an emeritus professor of history at California State University-Chico, shows that since Prop 209s passage, minority students enrollment in the UC system has increased, and their graduation rates have also improved. Geshekter credited the ban on racial preferences in college admissions with leading to a redistribution of minority students among UC campuses. More of them achieved better academic outcomes when they attended a college that offered an apparently better match for their academic backgrounds and preparation.

Even the Los Angeles Times had to admit that UCs student body ismore racially diverse today. For example, UCs 2020 freshman class was composed of 36 percent Hispanics, 35 percent Asians, 5 percent blacks, and 21 percent whites.Additionally, about 44% of admitted students were low-income, while 45% were the first in their families to attend a four-year university.

Californias Democrats and their allies, however, never let inconvenient truths stand in the way. They insisted (without proof) that Prop 209 was a barrier to remedying the states systemic racism and tried to overturn Prop 209 through Prop 16 in 2020.

The Yes on 16 campaign had the support of Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom,tech billionaires in Silicon Valley, corporate media, and leftist organizations in the state. They demonized the No on Prop 16 campaign as awhite supremacist effort, though racially diverse groups, including Asians and African Americans, supported the No campaign. The Yes campaign also outspent the No campaign 14 to 1. Still, California votersrejected Prop 16 decisively.

Prop 16s defeat was not an outlier. In 2019, voters in Washington, another blue state,defeatedtheir Democrat-controlled legislatures attempt to repeal the states decade-long ban on affirmative action. Additionally,Pew Researchfinds that 74 percent [of Americans] think race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions decisions. For gender, 82 percent think it shouldnt be considered. The results extend to every racial group and to Democrats as well as Republicans.

Californias Democrat legislators should have accepted defeat graciously, respected voters wishes, and shifted their energy and resources to other pressing issues. Instead, they couldnt take no for an answer. They chose to try to repeal Prop 209 again.

Last February, Assemblyman Corey A. Jackson, D-Perris, introduced Assembly Constitution Amendment 7, or ACA7. The bill would amend Prop 209 by authorizing the governor of California to issue waivers to public entities that wish to use state funds for evidence-based or research-informed and culturally specific programs to increase life expectancy, improve educational outcomes, and lift specific ethnic groups and marginalized genders out of poverty.

Clearly, ACA7 is a sly attempt to gut Prop 209 and make discrimination legal again in California. No wonder supporters referred to ACA7 as a skinnier affirmative-action measure.

Fellow Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Corona, voiced his objection to ACA7. He stated, We need to be treating each other equally, with dignity and respect, and stop the division. In response, Jackson referred to Essayli, the first Muslim member of the California Assembly, as a white supremacist.

Earlier this year, the California Reparations Task Force, a committee created by legislation and backed by Newsom, gave ACA7 a boost. The committee included the repeal of Prop 209 as one of its recommendations to the California Legislature in May 2023.

But a month later, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolinas race-based college admissions were unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. The ruling effectively bans affirmative action.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, The color of a persons skin is irrelevant to that individuals equal status as a citizen of this nation. To treat him differently on the basis of such a legally irrelevant trait is, therefore, a deviation from the equality principle and a constitutional injury. All racial stereotypes harm and demean individuals.

A Gallup pollfound that 68 percent of U.S. adults, including 63 percent of Asians, 68 percent of Hispanics, and 52 percent of black respondents, support the Supreme Courts decision.

Since the courts ruling, many state legislatures have considered bills restricting so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at public colleges and universities. Five states Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas passed legislation to ban some DEI programs, such as affirmative action in hiring and admissions, from their higher education institutions. Some American corporations have also begun to reevaluate their DEI initiatives. They have learned that these initiatives have reinforced stereotypes, worsened the division of the workforce, and failed to create an inclusive workplace. Tech giants such as Google and Meta havemade cuts to their DEI initiatives and laid off DEI-focused employees.

Jackson and his Democrat colleagues in the California Legislature should have dropped ACA7 into a recycle bin and focused on other issues voters prioritize, such as drug overdose deaths, rampant crime, a growing homeless population, unaffordable energy and housing, and the rising cost of doing business in the state. Instead, Democrats doubled down and passed the bill in the California Assembly last September. ACA7 has now advanced to the Senate. If the Senate approves it by June 2024, ACA7 will appear on the state ballot in November this year, and Californians must vote again on the same issue they rejected merely four years ago.

Gail Heriot, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a law professor at the University of San Diego, is a proponent of Prop 209. She believes that Proposition 209 says something fundamental that our laws should not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. Its not a matter of which groups get the benefit and which bear the burden. Its a matter of principle.

Heriot has launched aNo on ACA7 petition at Change.org. Anyone, including non-California residents, can sign it. Heriot hopes to collect at least 26,000 signatures by next month and send a powerful message to the Senate: ACA7 is a bad idea, and senators should respect voters wishes by not moving the bill forward. In a state as diverse as California, it is all the more important that the government be prohibited from engaging in preferential treatment, Heriot said.

Since bad ideas that originate in California tend to spread to the rest of the country, any American who believes that all men are created equal ought to sign the No on ACA7 petition. Let California legislators know that racial discrimination in any shape or form is wrong and nothing can justify it.

Go here to read the rest:

California Democrats Work To Make Discrimination Legal (Again) - The Federalist

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley thinks shes running in a two-way race. Shell have to win far more than just New Hampshire to turn that fantasy into a reality.

As the final votes were tallied in the first caucuses of the 2024 campaign, Haley declared that the primary contest had been narrowed down to between her and former President Donald Trump. Trump carried every county in the Hawkeye State except one, where the Republican frontrunner tied with his U.N. ambassador.

I can safely say tonight Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race, Haley said.

The former two-term governor of South Carolina claimed to be triumphant despite a third-place finish with less than 20 percent of the vote. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis was the runner-up with 21 percent, and Trump carried the contest in first with 51 percent.

[RELATED: Actual Republicans Want Nothing To Do With Nikki Haley]

On Tuesday, Haley defended her third-place finish as some sort of vindication that she was running against Trump, and no one else, in the Republican primary.

We came out with a strong showing. Thats what we wanted in Iowa, she said.

Haley dropped out of the ABC News debate in New Hampshire, refusing to stand on stage with anyone other than the former president.

Weve had five great debates in this campaign, Haley wrote on platform X. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has ducked all of them. He has nowhere left to hide. The next debate I do will either be with Donald Trump or with Joe Biden.

Haleys campaign now hinges on New Hampshire, where an electorate contaminated by Democrat and independent voters registered as undeclared may vote in what is allegedly a Republican primary. The states semi-open primary, however, is no small part of Haleys plan to pick up the advantage. Haley has openly professed to courting Democrats and independents to carry her over the finish line in New England.

If we get independents, if we get conservative Democrats, thats what the Republican Party should pursue, Haley told reporters last month. Our goal is to get as many people in the tent as we can.

Its a fine message for the general election in November, but its not the one to run on in a Republican contest when campaigning for the trust of conservative voters. Haleys cross-party appeal threatens to dilute any victory in New Hampshire. Her courting of Democrat support in the primary provides evidence that she is more of a lefty politician running in the shadow of ex-Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney than someone who carries the blessing of the GOPs base. Her third-place finish in Iowa was already buffered by Democrats who still plan to vote Democrat this fall. Haleys home state of South Carolina will vote just one month later, and polling shows Trump commands a consistent 30-point lead.

Of course, polls dont vote. People do. But a Haley win among Democrats in New Hampshire is unlikely to offer the former South Carolina governor the momentum she needs to convince home-state voters of conservative credentials that could out-Trump Trump. Voters are likely already suspicious of Haleys aggressive platform on foreign affairs as the establishments neocon favorite in the primary. While Haley routinely bangs the war drums over China and Ukraine, most Republican voters say the U.S. has already spent enough on Kyiv.

Haleys White House effort being bankrolled by Democrat megadonors, on the other hand, does little to shake off her brand as another Cheney in 3-inch heels. In December, LinkedIn Co-Founder Reid Hoffman gave $250,000 to Haleys super PAC. Who was another neocon Republican reliant on left-wing money to court Democrat voters in a GOP primary? Liz Cheney.

Victory in New Hampshire is far more validation that Haley is an imitation of the ousted Wyoming lawmaker than she is the incoming Republican standard-bearer.

See the article here:

A Haley Win In New Hampshire Will Not Be The Victory She Thinks - The Federalist