Category Archives: Federalist

From petty and nominal accolades such as the Athlete of the Year, to meritorious recognitions such as the Pulitzer, the absence of any genuine competition makes imminent the eventual disintegration of any sense of fair play.

Simone Biles was named Time magazines 2021 Athlete of the Year, supposedly for inspiring global conversations about mental health after publicly prioritizing her physical and mental well-being at the Tokyo Olympics. This should not come as a surprise, as it did to some, amid widespread mockery on social media.

Biles, as readers would remember, infamously withdrew from the Olympics because she broke down under pressure. This was not little Shropshire Countys one-legged gunny bag race. This was representing the country in the Olympics, which is ostensibly the greatest sporting event of its kind.

The athletes who participate in the Olympics are not equal to us. They are better than us, which means they are expected to perform despite immense pressure not quit. Quitting makes one average, and average people might be worthy of respect and even pity, but not accolades. Quitting never gets anyone prizes, or at least it never did up until now. Yet Biles (and her public relations person) unashamedly explained that she put herself before everything else. Her teammates won silver without her. She came back later and won a bronze.

Now, Biles is of course a very talented individual and has suffered some extremely abusive and dark times. And in the past, she achieved a lot. But that is beside the point. The athlete of this year is not supposed to be for prowess in other fields or past history. Retired greats are not suddenly being named Athlete of the Year for their gardening skills, for example.

As others rightfully questioned, why were Katie Ledecky, Allyson Felix, Tamyra Mensah-Stock, or Sydney McLaughlin not chosen by Time? The latter three, especially, are role models, and won against all odds in the same Olympics. It would have been especially appropriate at a time of renewed debate about minority role models and representation.

But it would be fallacious to consider this case an outlier. This accolade for Biles is negligible and mostly for public relations, but it is by no means unique.

Consider any transgender athlete who is competing with women. When the whole team is together, we have to be like, Oh my gosh, go Lia, thats great, youre amazing. Its very fake, an anonymous female athlete revealed recently about a man with a square jawline, broad shoulder plate, baritone, and a very prominent Adams apple breaking all the female undergrads swimming records.

This sense of dejected helplessness is not just in sports. Someone now can get accepted into Stanford University by simply writing Black Lives Matter a hundred times. 1619 Project lead Nikole Hannah-Jones is offered a professorship without doing any peer-reviewed research, and wins a Pulitzer simply because she knows what to say, regardless of the historical validity of the narrative.

Thousands of far more intelligent historians and political scientists meanwhile remain jobless. The end result is almost always predetermined in a society where fair competition appears to be ending. Discrimination against one of the most hardworking and family-oriented minority groups is normalized in academia, higher-ed, and law and order, and no one bats an eyelid or starts a mass-protest movement. This double standard is institutionalized in society as a norm.

The urban left often talks a big game about precariatization while deliberately overlooking the key variable in social mobility merit and competition because it helps their own social strata, which is predominantly upper-middle-class, mostly young and liberal ascendant, and up to speed with current cultural and social fads. The new elite, just like those of the old in the Florentine republic or the Dutch guilds, surpasses achievement and co-opts movements towards their class interests.

In the Florentine republic, elite bankers designeda system that systematically subverted the old republicantraditions by destroying any fair competition. Eventually, it resulted in a local hierarchy by destroying any equality of opportunity, then took over governance and turned the republican system into one of feudalism.

Achievements are often determined and judged by ones peer group, thereby establishing a loop and a resulting hierarchy. From petty and nominal accolades such as the Athlete of the Year to meritorious recognitions such as the Pulitzer, the absence of any genuine competition makes imminent the eventual disintegration of any sense of fair play.

There was another system of governance that reflected a similar lack of fair play, in which a section of society knew they would never win despite their best efforts because the system was designed to promote only those it prefers. Thats called an aristocracy.

We often simply focus on Rome to study historical cycles but a better template perhaps is the corruption and decline of the Florentine republic. In the cycle of history, the clearest sign of a new, emerging aristocracy is not economic decline or even varied social mores between different sections of society. It is the decline of any fair competition. That results in further class divisions and fuels backlash. It is a relevant lesson for our times.

Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a national-security fellow at The Center for the National Interest; a non-resident fellow at the James G Martin Center; and an elected early career historian member at the Royal Historical Society. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, and can be reached on Twitter @MrMaitra.

See the original post here:

Simone Biles As 'Athlete Of The Year' Underscores The Left's Hierarchy - The Federalist

Democrat Sens. Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren have tested positive for COVID-19 this week, and it raises a lot of questions: Why arent they following the science? Were they not wearing their masks? And why does there continue to be so much virus spread under President Joe Biden, who promised that if elected would end the pandemic?

Both Booker and Warren declared their positive status Sunday on Twitter, sure to note that they do everything right theyre perfect, if you didnt know but that they nonetheless got infected. I learned today that I tested positive for COVID-19 after first feeling symptoms on Saturday, Booker said on Twitter. My symptoms are relatively mild. Im beyond grateful to have received two doses of vaccine and, more recently, a booster Im certain that without them I would be doing much worse.

Warren also said her symptoms were mild and that she caught a breakthrough case even though she is vaccinated & boosted.

Thats good to hear, but this isnt the way things are supposed to go. Americas chief nag, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, said in an interview last week that the best way to protect yourself against COVID is to not get it in the first place, and that is to get vaccinated and boosted.

As vaccinated and boosted people, Booker and Warren should not have gotten the virus, which, according to the people in charge (Democrats), means they must have been doing something wrong. Were they failing to cover their faces with the CDC-recommended double masks? Were they partaking in nonessential travel, thus potentially endangering the health and lives of untold numbers of people? Were they really vaccinated?

I wish them the best, but it concerns me that they were likely being very reckless as we currently average more than 130,000 new positive cases and nearly 1,300 additional virus-related deaths each day.

Its all depressing, but wasnt this supposed to be over by now? Shortly after he was inaugurated, Biden said of the pandemic, by next Christmas, I think well be in a very different circumstance, God willing, than we are today.

That was back in mid-February when we were averaging just more than 80,000 new COVID cases each day. Right now, were quickly approaching double that number.

Thats from the same guy who said he would shut down the virus. But even though were not even through his first year in office, Biden has overseen the second biggest wave of new infections and now, the third (assuming it doesnt eclipse either of the previous two).

Under Biden, weve even seen two new variants!

Its as if Democrats are trying to kill us. Maybe try staying away from them for a while.

Read more from the original source:

Warren And Booker Get Infected As Democrats Keep Spreading COVID - The Federalist

Despite its immense age, size, and population and long record of civilizational accomplishment, 19th-century China was politically, economically, and militarily very weak. From the Chinese point of view, this allowed Western powers to push their country around at will.

The British, frustrated with Chinese trade practiceshigh tariffs, unwillingness to buy British goods, insistence on being paid only in speciecontrived to sell opium into the Chinese market to offset their trade deficit. Opium was then a highly desired commodity in China, but also illegal. The Chinese emperors and mandarins, being no fools, did not desire a drugged-out population.

But the British wouldnt stop selling opium to Chinese smugglers. This led to the First Opium War, which China lost. That war was resolved by the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, which, among other provisions, ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity.

In those days, Hong Kong Island was not the teeming skyscraper forest that we know today. It was an almost entirely unpopulated rock. The nearest settlement of any importance was Canton (today known as Guangzhou), 100 miles northwest.

Moreover, Hong Kong was not exactly a promising place to begin a settlement. The harbor was arguably not bad, although open to the sea on two sides. But why would you use it when several better harbors, including Cantons, were, in nautical terms, so close?

As for natural resources, including all-important water, it had virtually none. So, on one level, the ceding of Hong Kong felt like no great loss.

But it rankled. No country likes to lose a war, and no country especially likes to lose one to drug dealers. The Treaty of Nanking thus became known in China as the first of many (there were at least 25) Unequal Treaties imposed on that country by Western powers over Chinas subsequent Century of Humiliation.

Only two of those other agreements need concern us. The first is the 1860 Convention of Peking, one provision of which ceded Kowloona narrow peninsula just north of Hong Kong Islandto Britain. The second, and far more consequential, is the 1898 Second Convention of Peking, which leased to Britain, for 99 years, the New Territories: many outlying islands plus a large chunk of mainland directly north of Kowloon.

Hong Kong may not have been worth much in 1842, but it was Britains first foothold in China, so they tried to make the best of it. To do that, they needed to make life in the colony viable, which meant they needed more land and resources, which explains the two Conventions.

As we all know, British Hong Kong eventually grew into a smashing success. By the time of its handover back to China in 1997, it was not only the financial and business capital of East Asia and arguably of the entire Pacific Rim, but per capita income in the colony exceeded that of the mother country. If memory serves, that had never happened anywhere before and hasnt happened since.

More than 85 percent of the colonys land comprised areas covered by that 99-year lease. Without it, or at least without it being controlled by a friendly and cooperative power, neither Hong Kong Island nor Kowloon is viable. With this in mind, in the late 1970s, British officials began inquiring with their Chinese counterparts about extending the lease or coming to some arrangement whereby Britain could continue to administer the entire territory.

The Chinese reply was a firm no. They added: We dont even recognize the validity of so-called permanent concessions of Hong Kong and Kowloon. We want the whole colony back. If we must, we can take it by force. And we both know you cant stop us.

The British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, felt certain the treaties that granted Hong Kong and Kowloon were valid. But to fight on that ground would mean, at best, losing the New Territories once the lease expired and then watching while the Island and the Peninsula were, in effect, besieged into submission. And that was assuming the Chinese honored the 1842 and 1860 agreements, which they had already declared they wouldnt.

At worst, it would mean a war that Britain could not win. Therefore, in the early 1980s, Thatcher reluctantly but determinedly opened negotiations with the Peoples Republic of China to return the entirety of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, with protections for the Hong Kong peoples liberties.

In his excellent little book The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy, Edward Luttwak shows how much the Chinese, and especially the countrys leadership, value their classic literature. Apart from Confuciuss Analects, there is perhaps no more famous or beloved Chinese book than Sun Tzus Art of War.

One of Sun Tzus most famous aphorisms is To win without fighting is best. Another goes something like this (translations vary widely): To destroy the enemy is not the acme of skill; to capture intact the enemys state, army, ship, city, fortressthat is the acme of skill.

These two sentiments sum up Chinese strategy on Hong Kong and, as we shall see, Taiwan. From the moment the Treaty of Nanking was signed, China wanted Hong Kong back. But at first, and for at least a century thereafter, China was too weak to do anything about it.

Yet even as China finally began regaining a semblance of its former strength following the Second World War, its leadership was patient. They knew they had Britain over a barrel. There was no reason to rush or pushleast of all to risk destroying the prize in the very act of retaking it. In the end, China won without fighting and seized the enemys city intact.

The parallels between Hong Kong and Taiwan are not exact, but they sometimes rhyme.

Taiwans current status is a product of the Chinese civil war, which raged intermittently from 1927 to 1949. To make a (very) long story short, that war was fought between the mostly coastal and urban Kuomintang (KMT), or Nationalists, and the mostly interior and rural Chinese Communist Party (CCP). (Imagine a coastal, urban nationalist political party!)

As we all know, the Communists won and established the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. But the Nationalists were not utterly defeated. They retreated to the island of Formosa, which we know as Taiwan, from which they claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole country, the direct successor to Sun Yat-sens Republic of China (ROC) which in 1912 had replaced Chinas last imperial dynasty. In fact, for decades thereafter, both Chinese capitalsPeking (now Beijing; PRC) and Taipei (ROC)each claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all China.

The United States naturally sided with the Nationalists, because the KMT had been American allies in the Second World War, because their leader Chang Kai-shek had deep ties to the American establishment, and because they were anti-Communists.

Relations between the two entities were not good. The two occasionally appeared on the brink of war, for instance during the Quemoy-Matsu crises of the 1950s, when the PRC tested the resolve of the Taiwanese and their American allies to defend the islands separate status.

This uneasy status quo was transformed by two events. First was President Nixons famous 1972 opening to China. We may, for this essay, leave to one side the extent to which that alleged opening was engineered by China to gain American aid against the USSR, from which the PRC had broken in the late 1950s and early 60s. Similarly, we may leave aside the extent to which, as some believe, the Sino-Soviet split was exaggerated or even faked. One can hold both revisionist positions and still accept the rest of the story.

At any rate, the official tale goes like this. Mainland Chinai.e., China minus Taiwan, as well as pre-handover Macau (which was then a Portuguese colony) and Hong Konghad been closed since the 1949 revolution. Through adept diplomacy, Nixon and Henry Kissinger convinced Mao Tse-tung and his senior officials to open China to American diplomatic contact, travel, cultural exchanges, and limited investment.

This was good in itself (its a big market) but also a useful hedge against the Russians. Above all, the Nixon administration needed Chinas help to end the Vietnam war (i.e., they needed Beijing to stop supporting and supplying Hanoi).

The Chinese, however, had a price. Official American policy since 1949 had been that the ROC was the legitimate government of all China. We did not recognize the government in Beijing, had no embassy or ambassador there, and through our support, Taiwan held the Chinese seat on the United Nations Security Council. In Beijings eyes, Taiwan is not a country, but a renegade province. Hence Chinas demand to Nixon was: If you want our help, let all that go.

Nixon did, to a point. He changed Americas policy to the declaration that there is One China, coupled with official agnosticism as to which one it was. But he did pledge formal opposition to any move by Taiwan to declare its independence, and to any moves by either side to change the status quo by force.

Nixons calculated ambiguity barely outlasted his administration. In 1979, President Carter formally withdrew American diplomatic recognition from Taipei and recognized Beijing. In response, an angry Congress (pushed by the Taiwan lobby and its domestic allies) passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the United States to sell Taiwan defensive arms but does not explicitly guarantee American intervention on Taiwans side in the case of conflict.

The Taiwanese also maintain a studied ambiguity: theyve never declared independence, but neither have they altogether refrained from seeking status and benefits to which, under international treaties and laws, only sovereign states are entitled.

Happenings in the Taiwan Strait since 1979 have been, to coin a phrase, mostly peaceful. In the 1990s, Taiwan transitioned from the autocratic government of Chang Kai-sheks KMT to a modern democracy, thus adding to its pro-Taipei constituency of anti-Communists and China hawks pro-democracy activists and neocons.

China wants Taiwan back. This is true not merely of the CCP leadership but of the vast majority of the Chinese people, who believe that Taiwans separate existence is the last remaining vestige of the Unequal Treaties and the Century of Humiliation and is thus an affront to their nation.

This desire is irrespective of whos ruling in Beijing; it is a question of Chinas national identity, which is inseparable from its conception of its historic territorial integrity. Chinas desire to reclaim Hong Kong persisted through three regimes, two revolutions, a civil war, foreign occupation, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the liberalization of the Chinese economy, Tiananmen Square, and the countrys reemergence as a great power.

A similar dynamic prevails with Taiwan. Even if the great neocon dream for China were suddenly to become reality, a liberal democratic Beijing would want Taiwan back too. This matters because, in any contest, the side that wants it more tends to get what it wants.

Then there are basic considerations of geography. Every country in the world cares more about its own front yard than do countries half a world away. This is why it was so reckless of the USSR to try to place missiles in Cuba, and why its also reckless of the United States to needle Russia over Ukraine. One can utterly condemn Russian behavior in the Donbass, or Chinas in the Taiwan Strait, and still see that those countries are more likely than not to fight over issues and regions that they see as vital to themselves but peripheral to us.

China would like to get Taiwan back in much the same way as Beijing reincorporated Hong Kong: change the strategic reality on the ground (and in the air, and on the water) and persuade the other party, or parties, to make a deal.

In this case, the strategic reality boils down to: If China were to attempt an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, could the Taiwanese and the Americans stop it? When the Taiwan Relations Act was passed, the answer was: undoubtedly. Today, after four decades of growing Chinese strength and technological sophistication, coupled with American strategic drift, the answer is less clear.

The Chinese regime, however, apparently believes that, given enough time and a large enough arms buildup, it can so change the balance of power that even the meanest observer will conclude that defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack would be impossible. At that point, it is hoped, cool heads among the Taiwanese leadership will persuade the Taiwanese people to make the best deal they can.

It is a combination of this hope, an uncertainty that a power imbalance sufficient to ensure an invasions success has yet been reached, and fear of the consequences to Chinas international standing should it invade, that has thus far held China back. China waited 155 years to reclaim Hong Kong. Its been about half that much time since it lost Taiwan. China would prefer not to wait another three-quarters of a century but also appears to believe time is on its side.

The Chinese complainloudlyany time the United States (or any other country) does or says anything that can be perceived as supportive of Taiwanese independence. Every American arms sale to Taiwan, in particular, elicits a howl. Yet here we remain, 73 years after the separation, and no invasion has yet been attempted.

But China has made clear that any provocative steps to change the status quo might well be met with force. The most likely or at least obvious such hypothetical would be Taiwan unilaterally declaring independencewhich Taipei is unlikely to do, because its leadership knows such a step would be tantamount to foreswearing American assistance in the inevitable conflict. Weve made it plain that if they start it, we wont bail them out.

Another possibility making the rounds these days is that the allegedly megalomaniacal Xi Jinping is determined to solve the Taiwan problem on his watch. That is to say, if he cant convince Taiwan to make a deal while hes still in power, hell invade before hes gone. This will, it is said, be his legacy.

I have no special insight into Xi Jinpings thinking on this matter (nor, I suspect, do Americas intelligence agencies). But such a stance would be inconsistent with nearly two centuries of Chinese behavior, and with the countrys beloved classics of strategy.

Yet American officials, by insisting this is Chinas intent, might provoke the very action they insist theyre on guard against. If the United States convinces itself that China is going to invade Taiwan, then its security apparatus will interpret every little Chinese move in the Taiwan Strait as a potential precursor for war and respond accordingly.

They moved a missile battery here, a bomber squadron there, or a cruiser over there? Send the Navy! In other words, its possible the United States might inadvertently provoke China, through an ill-considered response to some irritating but low-grade Chinese provocation.

Its all well and good to say, But they shouldnt have done that in the first place; to let them get away with it would have been appeasement. And maybe they shouldnt have done that, whatever it is. But once the shooting starts, that will be a matter for historians; the statesmen responsible for keeping our country at peace will have blown it.

Supposing the war came: Regardless of its precise cause, what might be the outcome? Lets remember, first, that Taiwan is 81 miles from mainland China, but 1,300 miles to the U.S. Navys Seventh Fleet base in Yokosuka, Japanand 5,100 miles from Pearl Harbor, and 6,500 miles from San Diego. In every way, from operations tempo to reinforcement and resupply to intelligence collection, this would seem to give China enormous advantages in any conventional conflict.

To raise another consideration, which I raised at this years National Conservatism conference: The U.S. militarys principal strategy, because this is its principal capability, is denial. That is, in this context, deny Chinese forces command of the sea and air necessary to mount a successful invasion.

Our primary means of doing so are carrier battle groups, the backbone of American power projection since 1942. But the effectiveness of this strategy presupposes the invulnerability of American aircraft carriers. Thats what the battle groups are for. All those other ships (and submarines) are there to protect the carriers.

Can they? Its been a long timereally, since 1945that the U.S. Navy has faced battle against a peer competitor. During the final decade of the Cold War, we were confident that our technology was so superior to the Russians that the Soviet navy could not lay a finger on one of our carriers. That assumption was (happily) never tested.

Is our technology still that good? The China of 2021 is, at the very least, technologically far beyond the USSR of 1989. To the blunt question Can China sink an American aircraft carrier? I dont know. But at our panel at NatCon, China expert David Goldman reported that legendary Pentagon thinker Andy Marshall told me in 2013 that China can sink a carrier.

The last American fleet carrier (i.e., one of the big ones) sunk in battle was the USS Yorktown, at the Battle of Midway, June 7, 1942. Thats so long ago as to be, for most Americans, either forgotten or something to see in a movie.

A fleet carrier with the airwing on board carries more than 6,000 officers and crew. Thus, the sinking of one of these behemoths could lead to a loss of life more than twice as great as 9/11. The psychological shock to the nation might be even greater.

Just as Taiwan is at the core of Chinas national self-conception, aircraft carriers are at the core of Americas self-conception as the worlds greatest military power. To lose one for the first time in nearly eight decades is likely to be a blow from which the nation would have a hard time recovering.

Then what would be our response? What could it be? Even before we get to the issue of identifying some Chinese asset worthy of proportional retaliation (China does not, at present, have fleet carriers with 6,000 souls on board), we have to ask: If our premier platform for conventional power projection cannot safely operate in Chinese watersindeed, if one of them is at the bottom of the Taiwan Straitwhat, exactly, are we going to use to retaliate?

One obvious and deeply troubling answer is nuclear weapons. It might well come down to that or nothing. That is, either accept the loss of one of our most precious assets, along with 6,000 sailors, with all the concomitant national humiliation and crushed prestige, or start a nuclear war. The mere possibility of such a starkly atrocious alternative should be an incentive for our political leaders to do everything in their power to avoid it.

Remember: The Chinese care about Taiwan infinitely more than we do. Is it wise to threaten, much less launch, a nuclear strike over a territory they see as a vital organ but which is peripheral to us?

What is Chinas likely response? In 1996, a senior Peoples Liberation Army general explained that he did not think, in the final analysis, that the United States would want to trade Los Angeles for Taipei. In other words, the Chinese are willing to launch nuclear strikes against undefended American cities to have their way over Taiwan. Are will ready and willing to absorb such strikes, and launch similar strikes of our ownand likely still lose Taiwan?

It pained me to write that. I love, or loved, those servicesespecially the Navy. And, yes, I am sure that the military is not entirely incompetent and that many fine and talented people still serve. But the brass is woke and incompetent, and senior officers and civilian leaders tolerate and even encourage wokeness and incompetence; or to say better, they excuse and deny incompetence in furtherance of wokeness.

As for incompetence, the most recent example is the disastrous and humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan. On wokeness, how about Gen. Mark Milleys comment this past summer on white rageor really, any statement by any general or flag officer over the last two years at least. Theyre all on record sounding like Robin DiAngelo, two octaves down.

More directly relevant: Did you know that the Navy crashed or ran aground five ships in 2017? Doing so used to be a very big deala career-ender for the captain. When I was in high school, I vividly recall the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise running aground on Cortez Bank, a freakishly shallow, but well-charted, patch of the Pacific 100 miles from San Diego. The captain was relieved of duty on the spot.

As for those five 2017 mishaps, the official reports are marvels of esoteric writing. If you squint hard and read between the lines, you can discern what really happened: By prioritizing factors other than competence and seamanship, the Navy put into positions of great responsibility people who didnt know what they were doing.

As for losing aircraft carriers, did you also know that we lost a light carrier in 2020? Not to enemy action, but to a firewhich appears to have been arson, set for personal reasons by a sailor involved in a love triangle with two other sailorsa fire, moreover, that the Navy did not know how to put out. As a result, the USS Bonhomme Richard was withdrawn from service and sold for scrap. Estimated replacement cost: $4 billion.

No one, so far as I can tell, has paid a price for any of this, nor have the Navys priorities changed. If anything, that service (and the others) seem to be doubling down on wokeness.

The Biden administrations nominee for vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Christopher Grady, testified that, if confirmed, one of his top priorities will be seeding gender advisorsi.e., woke commissarsthroughout the services. Will part of their job be to find and defuse love triangles before they get more ships burned?

In any conflict with China over Taiwan, the Navy will take the lead for our side. Is it up to the task?

It is often said that, were a crisis in the Taiwan Strait to erupt, and the United States didnt come to the islands defense, our alliance network in East Asia, and perhaps elsewhere, would dissolve.

This argument is predicated on the presupposition that the United States has pledged itself to defend Taiwan. But that isnt true. We have no mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. If we want to get super-technical, we cant have a treaty with an entity we dont recognize as a country.

Legalistic hair-splitting aside, neither do we have any sort of agreement that commits us to the defense of Taiwanthe way that, say, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Charter or various mutual defense treaties do, in fact, obligate us to come to the defense of other nations. Were we to fail to honor one of those treaties, no doubt our alliance structure would crashdeservedly so.

Would it in the case of not defending a territory we are not, formally, pledged to defend? Perhaps. But if that is so, then our alliance structure is potentially at risk everywhere, over any number of commitments we havent made.

The logic of this argument points to obligating the United States to defend anyone and everyone, anywhere and everywhere, lest one ally disapproves of some inaction and lose faith. There are, to be sure, certain neocons who welcome that posture. Does the majority of the American people? And even if they did, is it a mission the United States is capable of fulfilling?

One big consideration this argument fails to take into account is: What would be the effect on our alliance structure if we tried to defend Taiwanand failed? It is, to say the least, not obvious that we could successfully prevent a Chinese invasion. Once weve made our incapacity utterly plain to the world, wouldnt that destroy our alliance network more swiftly and surely than any reluctance to act?

The final argument one hears from Taiwan hawks is that it would be dishonorable for the United States not to defend that island. How it can be dishonorable not to do a thing one has not pledged to do is never explained.

Nor is it ever explained how honor requires us to attempt to do something that, in all likelihood, we cannot do. Indeed, sensible nations led by serious statesmen carefully choose the commitments they make, with an eye toward ensuring those commitments are within national capabilities and serve the national interest.

Americas posture toward Taiwan is a Cold War relic. Thats not to say a Taiwan free of Chinese subjugation isnt in Americas interest. It manifestly is. Nor is it to say that we shouldnt care about Taiwanese democracy or liberty. We should, and I do.

It is to say that we should be mindful of both our core national interests and capabilities and commit ourselves accordingly. The best thing for Taiwan and the United States is the preservation of the status quo for as long as possible. But there is no core American national interest that would compel us to go to war over Taiwan. Even if there were, theres no guarantee we could win, or even hold our own.

Some might retort that this is an irresponsible thing to say, that even broaching the possibility that the United States cant or wont defend Taiwan emboldens China and risks war. But I am not Dean Acheson speaking at the National Press Club. I am just a commentator.

Nor does my former status as a mid-level National Security Council staffer give me any special standing. If it helps, I will say to any Chinese officials reading this: If you are tempted to take this as a green light to invade Taiwan: Dont! It would be wrong, it would be disastrous, youd pay an enormous diplomatic and economic price (imagine the sanctions, and not just from us), and the people who do run American foreign and defense policy are likely to try to stop you.

The questions for us Americans, however, are whether our leaders should and whether they can.

Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a former national security official in the Trump administration.

View post:

Why It's Clearly Not In America's Interest To Go To War Over Taiwan - The Federalist

If youre not already watching Yellowstone on Paramount Network, then youre missing out on the best show on television. Its The Godfather in Montana, starring Kevin Costner in his best role since Dancing with Wolves. Now, from Yellowstone co-creator Taylor Sheridan, comes the origin story of the Dutton Ranch in 1883, which debuted after Costners latest this week and continues on the new Paramount+ streaming service.

Its easy to forget in these modern days, sitting in our air-conditioned homes, 60-inch OLED hanging on the wall and super-computer in hand, that America was once wild, free, and available to those with the stones to take it. The road West was long, but millions upon millions of Americans, some newly arrived on these shores, some just looking for a better life or a chance to start over again, took that long and dangerous journey to find themselves a plot of land to call their very own.

In 1883, Taylor Sheridan shows us what that journey is like for a family we know, the Duttons. Of course, the Duttons we have grown to know over four seasons of Yellowstone are the descendants of these brave pioneers, but they have the same fiery, success-at-any-cost spirit, and thats what makes them fun to watch.

Leading this generation of the Dutton family is Tim McGraw as James. When we first see James, hes being chased by thieves trying to steal his horses and wagon. Through some sly horsemanship and deadeye shooting, Dutton kills them all. Looking on is the other main character of this first episode, Sam Elliott as Shea Brennan, a Pinkerton detective hired to get a group of immigrant pioneers to Oregon. Elliott is the glue of this cast, at least so far. Hes a criminally under-appreciated star and the authenticity of this performance drips in the sweat off of his serious silver stache.

1883 starts us off in Texas, in the wild cowboy town of Fort Worth. Today its part of the DFW metroplex, one of Americas fastest-growing cities and home to Horned Frogs, corporate headquarters, and more Chevy Suburbans than horses, but it still has a bit of the wild cow town spirit we see in this episode.

The scene-stealer of this first episode also serves as our occasional narrator, Duttons daughter Elsa, played by Isabel May. From what weve seen so far, the rattlesnakes and thieves should be scared of her, because shes certainly not scared of them. At one point Elsa is assaulted by a rotund drunk man who stumbles into her bed. She fights him off long enough for her father to blow his head off. Apparently Beth Dutton wasnt the first firecracker in the Dutton family.

By the end of the first episode, we see the Duttons and Elliotts large crew of German immigrants in a long wagon train evocative of the storybook tales we read as children. Somehow though, this show seems like it will illustrate the darker side of that journey. Died of dysentery may have been a bad way to lose Oregon Trail on your Apple IIe during computer class, but for these pioneers it was a true threat.

From the teases Ive seen of upcoming episodes, the Duttons will face every manner of challenge on their way to what will become the Yellowstone Ranch we know and love. Everything from the wilds of nature, to Indians who wanted the scalps of pioneers as trophies, to disease and malnutrition will look to keep these brave folks from reaching the promised land. You can bet Ill be there for every minute.

This is the western we all need right now to remind us how the West was won, and how the brave souls who embarked on a long, dangerous journey into the unknown helped give us the America we have today. Freedom isnt free, and it didnt spring up all of sudden in a trendy Brooklyn diner with avocado toast and a Tesla. 1883 reminds us that without the efforts of real pioneers, who risked life and limb to trudge across the great plains, none of what we enjoy today would be here. This is the story of America, and you shouldnt miss it.

Brad Jackson is a writer and radio personality whose work has appeared at ABC, CBS, Fox News, and multiple radio programs. He was the longtime host and producer of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning podcast and radio show with more than 1500 episodes. Guests included politicians, Wall Street experts, best-selling author Brad Thor, economist Art Laffer, journalists Michael Barone, Jim Pethokoukis and Andrew Malcolm, as well as Super Bowl-winning quarterback Drew Brees. Brad covers all things edible and cultural for The Federalist. You can find him on Twitter and Instagram at @bradwjackson.

Read more from the original source:

'Yellowstone' Origin Story '1883' Is The Western We All Need Right Now - The Federalist

By now, youve likely seen or heard the latest coronavirus messaging from the White House, which President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk about again later on Tuesday. The president gave the first doomsday message for the unvaxxed, COVID response chief Jeff Zients repeated it, and chief of staff Ron Klain doubled down on it, so the comments were no slip of the tongue. This is the administrations official line.

We are intent on not letting omicron disrupt work and school for the vaccinated. Youve done the right thing, and we will get through this. For the unvaccinated, youre looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm, Zients said, one day after Biden made nearly identical comments.

This messaging is problematic for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is its remarkable ability to further harden 50 percent of the country against the so-called unity president, who has shaped up to be leagues more divisive than his predecessor.

But buried under the latest dark winter threat is an admission from the Biden White House that its detractors have been right about its aims all along. The contrast between the in-group and the out-group isnt that one is rid of the virus while the other isnt. The difference is that one has done the right thing.

In fact, the message for the vaccinated seems to assume omicron infections as a foregone conclusion. It assures the vaxxed that the administration is there to help make their lives easier, omicron or not, because theyve done the righteous thing by falling in line with the White Houses vaccine goals.

Frankly, it makes sense to assume widespread omicron infections regardless of vaccination status. Breakthrough cases are the new norm, with plenty of high-profile Democrats, including Jen Psaki, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren, among those statistics. Thats because, as weve known for a while now, the vaccinated can still get COVID. They can still spread COVID. And they can still be hospitalized with COVID.

What doesnt make sense, then, is the insistence that remaining unvaccinated is a death sentence. For behind all the hysterical fearmongering, many people who have not gotten the jab will not come anywhere near severe illness and death this Christmas, nor are they more of a risk than the vaxxed to others, nor will they be overwhelming hospitals.

If the administrations dark winter threats are intended for young people of a healthy weight without preexisting conditions, for instance, theyre a bald-faced lie. A vaccine cant decrease a persons chance of death any lower than 0.001 percent. And judging by the fact that the warning was in the context of disrupting work and school, this is exactly the demographic the White House is barking at.

Its here that the White House can no longer cling to its pandemic of the unvaccinated talking point. The data flatly debunks it. Instead, it must differentiate the groups not by who is getting and spreading the virus, but by who has done the right thing.

This is all to be expected, of course, because its part of the same pandemic theater weve been subjected to with masks and distancing. Aside from the most at-risk groups (who have had plenty of time to get vaccinated), vaccine pushes for those not at risk have the same flavor as mask mandates that permit those ubiquitous homemade cloth face coverings.

In both cases, the science is pretty clear. Unvaxxed young, healthy people and those with natural immunity are well protected from serious COVID, and masks dont really work unless theyre specific kinds like N-95s (which the mask mandates never differentiate between or require). Yet the Biden administration and other bureaucrats want you to get vaxxed and mask up science be damned.

If it hasnt been clear in the last two years, it should be clear now: The forever pandemic and all the nasty rules that come with it arent about shutting down the virus, following the science, slowing the spread, flattening the curve, or being all in this together. Theyre about doing the Democrat-prescribed right thing.

See original here:

Vaccine Threats Aren't To Keep You Safe. They're To Keep You In Line - The Federalist

As 2021 draws to a close, perhaps one of the most important lessons learned for conservatives comes from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, who in a Sept. 28 debate with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin, declared: I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.

With that quotation, McAuliffe not only wrecked his campaign, but exposed what the left is really up to with public education, namely trying to undermine and vitiate parental authority. The lesson for conservatives is to keep pulling the thread on education, because it will keep paying political dividends.

Take, for example, WaPo columnist Kate Cohen, who authored a Nov. 24 op-ed titled: Parents think they know what is best for schools. But they often dont. Cohen didnt mince words: We shouldnt be in charge of our childrens education. Thats right, I agree with the statement Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe made in a late-September debate. Quoting McAuliffes blunder, Cohen doubles down regarding his assertion about parents not telling schools what to teach. Of course we shouldnt! asserts the mother of three.

It gets better. Cohen continues: Someone with real expertise should keep up with how many planets there are and how many genders, with the best way to do long division and to talk about race. She then closes her op-ed: We need more child-to-parent intergenerational training, as when your child goes to school, learns about the world, and comes home and educates you.

Let me summarize Cohens position. Using her own prudential judgment, Cohen as a parent has determined that whats taught in her childrens school in New York is good for them, and for her. She then writes to persuade adults to make a similar informed judgment to trust education experts. Of course, the obvious implication would be that adults like her and those to whom she is writing are reasonable enough to make informed judgments about whats best for their children, thus unintentionally disproving her own argument about public school autonomy.

This would be funnier if Cohens examples werent so terrible. There are two biological sexes, and two genders corresponding to those sexes. Thats not only science, its logic.

As my friend and professional philosopher Bryan Cross has argued, sex is manifested in the teleological order of the body. As Cross explains in an excellent piece at Public Discourse, binary quality of sex as male or female can be grounded in the two natural orders of the body with respect to gamete production. This is true even if there is no single genetic marker that determines this.

The argument that parents need to learn about the ever-expanding rainbow of genders is not only fallacious but dangerous, as Ethics and Public Policy Center Director Ryan Andersons book When Harry Became Sally (delisted from Amazon) and Abigail Shriers Irreversible Damage (also targeted for cancellation) so expertly prove. These books, which should be required reading for parents, explain both the fallacious science supporting the transgender movement and the terrible havoc gender dysphoria is causing on a generation of Americas youth.

Moreover, to give our increasingly dogmatic LGBTQ-pushing public schools control over the narrative is often in direct contradiction to what our religious beliefs (and leaders) teach. My own Catholic bishop, Michael F. Burbridge of the Arlington Diocese, earlier this year declared: The Church teaches that a person is created male or female No one is transgender.

Cohens position fails on yet another point: though raised Jewish, Cohen is an atheist, and, according to her own website, writing a book about raising my children as atheists. Yet it wasnt all that long ago that many public schools explicitly acknowledged the existence of God in the curriculum and school-sponsored activities, and promoted prayer and Bible study. Presumably, Cohen would not want that kind of education foisted upon her own progeny.

Thus we can see the hypocritical double standard at work in the arguments of Cohen and Co. Because such liberals agree with the current political, sexual and racial ideological agenda of many public school districts and teachers, they argue that parents need to trust educators and school administrators. Of course, in an earlier era when they would have flatly disagreed with the public school curriculum on any number of issues, they would have been up in arms, asserting their parental rights and taking their case to the courts.

Yet there is hope here. The more we identify and expose the true ideological agenda of liberal ideologues, the more they seem to double down on their own insane revolutionary program. Although some on the left have made an awkward backstep on critical race theory, gender dysphoria, and blatantly pornographic content, many others, including Cohen, are showing their true colors. In the same piece, Cohen even defends a writing course in Ohio for high school seniors that included writing prompts like write a sex scene you wouldnt show your mom. (Her reasoning is that 17- and 18-year-olds are already imagining sex scenes, so why not let them write about such things in school.)

This is, to put it bluntly, batty. There is reason to hope that most parents know this, and would prefer their kids learn how to read, write, do math, and other essential skills than be indoctrinated in every latest sexual craze among the technocratic elite and academia. There is also reason to hope that most parents are intelligent enough to recognize that Cohen and Co.s objective is to undermine parental independence and oversight so they can get on with the indoctrination of Americas next generation via their own biased curricula.

At least people like Sharon Kass of Washington seem to get it. In a Nov. 22 WaPo letter to the editor, she noted that public school libraries, though full of pro-LGBTQ material, are leftist indoctrination centers. Moreover, she notes, they would never feature books like former diplomat and Voice of America Director Robert R. Reillys Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. Theres that pesky double standard again!

The current education debate in this country is the gift that keeps on giving. The more we press secular educators, curriculum developers, and their advocates in the media, Hollywood, and the academy, the more they disclose their true intentions. They want our childrens minds (and bodies), and they want us to either surrender them or play along by what Cohen calls child-to-parent intergenerational training. Its ideas like that parents need to keep demanding leftist activists explain. I have a feeling the answer will be yet another gift.

Casey Chalk is a senior contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelors in history and masters in teaching from the University of Virginia and a masters in theology from Christendom College. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands.

Read more here:

Deadliest Political Gaffe Of The Year Goes To: Keeping Parents Out Of Classrooms - The Federalist

The song Baby Its Cold Outside has certainly had its fair share of controversy in recent years. In 2018, the infamous Christmas classic made headlines when numerous radio stations moved to scrap the song after its lyrics were deemed controversial.

Although many conservatives may see this as another example of cancel culture plaguing our society, I view it as a necessary development for a more progressive civilization. Such grotesque and misogynistic rhetoric should not be tolerated, especially in supposed family-oriented music.

While the attempted canceling of Baby Its Cold Outside is a step in the right direction, it didnt go nearly far enough. There are plenty of ChristmasI mean, holidaysongs that contain themes that are completely unacceptable in 2021.

So, in order to make the most wonderful time of the year more inclusive and tolerant, Ill be leaving you with a list of the most offensive Christmas songs that absolutely must go this holiday season. After all, the best way to spread Christmas cheer is to cancel what does not adhere.

On its face, Rudolph sounds like a nice, elegant Christmas tune that your kids will enjoy. But a further investigation into the songs lyrics reveals just how problematic this old-time classic truly is.

Take, for instance, lines like all of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names and they never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games, which blatantly glorify bullying of those who are different. Whats more, the other reindeer and Santa decide that Rudolph has some semblance of worth only after they use him as a flashlight to guide them through the wave of fog disrupting their Christmas Eve deliveries.

And who can ignore the undertones of animal abuse pervasive throughout the entire song. The idea that Santa can just brutally force these magical creatures into a life of indentured servitude is beyond repulsive and serves as one of the many reasons this song has got to go.

Frosty is a song that perfectly encapsulates the patriarchy that has dominated American society and Western civilization. Not only do the writers assume Frostys gender is male-identifying by including he/his pronouns in the lyrics, but they also dismiss any inclusion of snow-birthing-persons. Such sexism is emblematic of the patriarchal oppression all snow-birthing-persons face in their daily lives and professional careers.

To put the cherry on top, the writers also found it acceptable for Frosty to have two eyes made out of coal. The incorporation of a filthy fossil fuel demonstrates the continued ignorance of the dangers posed by the ongoing climate crisis.

In its day, this classic tune was cute. But, after the MeToo movement, it is completely unacceptable. Nowhere in the song does Santa give Mommy any consent to kiss him. Perhaps he did give it to her, but it was prior to the songs protagonist coming downstairs to witness the smooch under the mistletoe? Until such an agreement is confirmed by both parties, however, it is within the best interest of society to give this song the boot (#SantaToo).

While the songs protagonist may be dreaming of a white Christmas, Ill be dreaming of a world where this kind of blatant white supremacy isnt a mainstream holiday single. Not all Christmases have to be white. I just dont know when the white-dominant society will get the picture and stop pushing this kind of blatant racism.

Some will argue that this song is actually about the wish for snow on Christmas Day. But if such a claim is true, then where is the representation for snow-of-color? I mean, havent the writers ever heard of yellow snow?

Im sorry, but my troubles are not out of sight, because this song is completely lacking any form of inclusivity. The writers of this yuletide classic clearly didnt get the memo that society is all about the holidays now, and that any holiday-themed music must incorporate other seasonal celebrations. Unless this song is updated to include commemorations like Hannukah and Kwanzaa, it should be thrown into the chimney fire to burn.

Unlike other songs on this list, the major problems of Little Drummer Boy arent found in the lyrics, but in its historical connotations. Drummer boys played a critical role during the Civil War, oftentimes marching alongside Confederate soldiers. In the middle of battle, for instance, they would use drumbeats to send orders or signals from military leaders to troops engaged in combat.

While the writing of Little Drummer Boy had nothing to do with the Civil War, the implications evoked by the song are simply too great to ignore. Much like the Confederate statues that pollute our parks, this song deserves to be melted down and discarded.

Hitting grandmothers with sleighs is flat-out wrong. I cant believe that has to be said, but apparently the songs writers thought it was comical enough to write a Christmas jingle about. The outward contempt for grandmothers and the elderly is so potent that Im willing to bet the writers are also anti-vaxxers who refuse to triple mask and wear face shields to protect seniors from COVID-19.

Much like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, this song flawlessly quantifies the abuse facing so many animals in America. Despite their rhythmic vocals and spot-on pitch, nothing the chipmunks ever do satisfies Daves ambitions for perfection. His continuous screaming at Alvin is appalling to hear and exemplifies everything wrong with the white, male-dominant society endangering the livelihoods of animals all across the country.

If you thought that a tune like Deck the Halls was free of sin, youd be flat-out wrong. With lyrics like [D]on we now our gay apparel, this song is simply not acceptable in 2021. The flagrant appropriation of LGBT culture and dress wear is beyond abhorrent. How such offensive content has eluded so many for so long is a reflection of the homophobic bigotry prevalent throughout Western civilization.

Last Christmas defines our corrupt, capitalist system so incredibly well. Verses like Last Christmas, I gave you my heart, [B]ut the very next day, you gave it away are indicative of the greed and avarice harbored by Americas wealthy, upper class.

Despite the protagonists sincerity in giving away his/her heart, the recipient sells it to someone else almost immediately just to make a quick buck. Teaching our children these ideals through holiday songs will only further glamorize the failed and racist economic system known as capitalism, which is why this song has got to go.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Link:

10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 - The Federalist

Click the video to watch this episode of Culture War, plus an interview with the Conservative Partnership Institutes Rachel Bovard.

Its been two weeks since the Supreme Court of the United States heard the oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization the seminal case that could finally see a change to our countrys half-century abortion regime; a regime among the most barbaric on the entire planet.

Its always cryptic, reading too far into oral arguments. Everything seemed to go well Justice Brett Kavanaugh (a worry to many pro-lifers) seemed deeply skeptical of the lefts arguments; Chief Justice John Roberts, always cautiously liberal, correctly compared Americas abortion laws to those of China and North Korea.

By the end of the afternoon, folks from NBC Newss legal correspondent Pete King all the way back to our own Mollie Hemingway figured the old ways were DOA.

But things change. In March of 2012, the court heard three days of arguments in a case called National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius the first major case on the constitutionality of Obamacare. During those six hours of arguments, Roberts was engaged; fired up even. The Affordable Care Act looked to be in trouble.

Three months later, Roberts twisted the Senates own words and promises to write a tortured majority opinion upholding President Barack Obamas signature achievement on absurd legal grounds.

The individual mandate, the unprecedented command to buy a product whether you wanted it or not, was actually just a tax, Roberts said. Sure, it hadnt been a tax when they were writing the Affordable Care Act three years before, but now it was under a brand-new definition Roberts had just invented, tossing out years of established norms.

According to court reporting at the time, Roberts originally was part of a majority to strike down Obamacare. The opinions were being written; they were debating follow-up questions like whether the individual mandate would be separated or if the whole law had to come down. But then Roberts balked, and despite a month-long effort by Justice Anthony Kennedy to make him flip back, he stayed in President Barack Obamas corner

Weird, right? What could have changed so much in Robertss mind during those three months?

There are a lot of possible answers to that question, which is why its so notoriously difficult to read into arguments. Maybe his liberal colleagues swayed him; maybe he came to a different conclusion after a particularly lucid daydream.

The most likely answer, however based on everything we know about Roberts, and what drives him; what he cares about was media coverage. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, avoid even reading press coverage of the Court so they cant be influenced by it, even subconsciously. Roberts is not one of those justices: He is a man who cares deeply about how he is perceived; meaning he cares deeply about how he is portrayed.

And for those two spring months in 2012, the corporate media echo chamber was united and resounding: The court, they said, can only be seen as legitimate if it contorts itself to do what we want it to do. In The New York Times, an op-ed by Duke law professor Paul Carrington said that if the court dared to toss out the individual mandate, Congress should retaliate by imposing term limits on the remaining justices.

Many other articles suggested similar tactics. If the court wouldnt uphold the Democratic agenda, then the court was obsolete. Even the president chimed in.It was an absolute triumph of popularity over justice; the ultimate vindication of high school mean-girl rules.

But surely our corporate press has maintained objectivity and decorum over this past week, right? Lets take a look.

After last weeks oral arguments, CNN legal analyst and would-be-abortion-facilitator Jeffrey Toobin called the day, a real blow against the Supreme Courts institutional reputation.

Terry Moran, the senior national correspondent at ABC News, went on Good Morning America to call Justice Kavanaughs line of questioning ominous.

Theres no legal argument here, CNNs John King insisted, claiming, we will see what will be ultimately interpreted as a political decision.

MSNBCs Nicole Wallace used the word stench seven times to refer to the possibility of striking down abortion.

The New York Times published what Republican Sen. Josh Hawley correctly called an unhinged rant in favor of abortion by Linda Greenhouse a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who for three decades had surprise covered the Supreme Court for surprise The New York Times.

Fake war hero Brian Williams hosted a panel where he accused the Democrats of being cowards who werent willing to destroy the validity of the Supreme Court to save national abortion.

Who, he asked the panel, thinks that a party that was clowned into putting Kavanaugh and Barrett on the Court, that still acts as if McConnell is in charge of the filibuster, is going to gather the votes, the guts, and the ability to somehow pack or alter in any way the Supreme Court?

CNNs Anderson Cooper put on his super-serious intellectual glasses to talk to Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy about how Republicans are hypocritical to oppose abortion while not wanting to ban all guns.

MSNBCs Alicia Menendez brought on a Black Lives Matter activist to talk about her very important tweet that, the roots of the pro-life movement are about preserving segregation and building a white supremacist religious right.

Tell me more, Menendez pleaded.

CNN wasnt about to be left out of the racism game either. Host John Berman introduced the subject as one that could fundamentally alter life and choice for millions of women, before tossing to assistant law professor and CBS law contributor Alexis Hoag, who called federalism [quote] terrifying, and compared opposing Roe v. Wade to being pro-slavery.

MSNBCs Joy Reid said a decision to roll back our abortion laws would turn all women into secondary constitutional citizens, and force them to leave the babies on the doorstep of the firehouse.

It hurt her as a black woman and a sister, she continued, to see Justice Clarence Thomas on the bench, comparing banning abortion to state-sponsored enslavement. Pregnancy, she insisted can actually be dangerous to a womans health, especially when you live in a country like the United States.

Human dough ball Elie Mystal agreed wholeheartedly, insisting that, a fetus is not deserving of full personhood rights, and that Christians, are only concerned about the right of a fetus when that right can be used to diminish the rights of women.

Comb-over artist Chuck Todd competed with them all, throwing an on-air pro-abortion tantrum that would satisfy the most cringe-worthy of teenaged activists.

Youre worried about the liberty of the unvaccinated, he told Republican Sen. Mike Braun, what about the liberty of the woman who doesnt want to carry a pregnancy to term? Why should the government force that you dont want the government to force people to get a vaccine?

Not to be left out, supposed comedian Stephen Colbert told his audience that since we might not be allowed to kill our children anymore, in some states, where voters choose it, then we no longer live in a democracy.Amazingly, his take was less demented than the supposed comedians of The View.

This is just some of the coverage weve seen in the less than two weeks since the oral arguments were made. The case is far from lost and theres no doubt panic is spreading fast through Democratic ranks, but notice this: The left knows the fight is not over.

They know they can still pull a win out. Theyve done it before; they can do it again. And this is a key and fundamental difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP: They dont stop.

Whens the last time you heard a Democratic politician say, Hey guys, elections over; thanks for your help, everyone head home and well see you again in two years?You havent heard that because they have never said anything remotely like that.

Instead what youll hear is, The election is over, but the fight has just begun. They count on their activists to come with them and help them in the political fights ahead. They count on the media, too.

The Dobbs arguments were a long time coming. Many people fought their whole lives for that day. Too many who prayed and who loved and who gave it their all never even lived to see it. Were lucky we did.

But the fights not over. We cant just go home and let the court decide what the court decides. Theres a role for us now, and its in our newspapers and magazines; in our letters to the editor and our town hall meetings; its in our marches and our rallies and our prayers.

On a sunny day two weeks ago, our politics in this country changed forever, no matter the outcome. But this is our moment; what weve been fighting for all these years. And we must seize it.

See more here:

Supreme Court's Abortion Argument Isn't Over. The Left Is Still Fighting - The Federalist

Shortly after the end of the Constitutional Convention, a national debate began about whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Newspapers nationwide published essays both for and against ratification Those who supported ratification of the Constitution were known as Federalists.

The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, that appeared in New York newspapers, primarily, the Independent Journal and the New York Packet, between October of 1787 and August of 1788. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison did not sign their names to the essays; they chose to publish using assumed names such as Publius, which was a reference to a Roman consul, Publius Valerius Publicola.The essays urged New York delegates to ratify the Constitution. In 1788, the essays were published in a bound volume entitled the Federalist and eventually became known as the Federalist Papers.

Some people felt that the Constitution would give the central government too much power and would limit individual freedom. To address these fears, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison analyzed the Constitution in detail and outlined the built in checks and balances meant to divide power between the three branches of government and preserve the rights of the people and states.

Even though they did not play a significant role in New York's decision to ratify the Constitution, the Federalist Papers remain an important collection today because they offer insight into the intentions of key individuals who debated the elements of the Constitution.

To learn more, see theFederalist Paperssite at the Library of Congress.

View post:

The Federalist Papers: 1787-1788 - GPO

The anti-Federalists and their opposition to ratifying the Constitution were a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Amercians' civil liberties. The anti-Federalists were chiefly concerned with too much power invested in the national government at the expense of states. (Howard Chandler Christy's interpretation of the signing of the Constitution, painted in 1940.)

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.

Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution, drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, needed to be ratified by nine or more state conventions (and by all states that wanted to take part in the new government). A clash erupted over ratification, with the Anti-Federalists opposing the creation of a strong national government and rejecting ratification and the Federalists advocating a strong union and adoption of the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French.

To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution.

The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius.

Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer).

By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:

The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain.

Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties. Upon ratification, James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789. The states ratified ten of these, which took effect in 1791 and are known today collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not filter into the presidency of George Washington.

Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamiltons aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jeffersons view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party.

The latter party, led by Jefferson and James Madison, became known as the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern Democratic Party.

The Democratic-Republican Party gained national prominence through the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1801.

This election is considered a turning point in U.S. history because it led to the first era of party politics, pitting the Federalist Party against the Democratic-Republican Party. This election is also significant because it served to repudiate the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts which made it more difficult for immigrants to become citizens and criminalized oral or written criticisms of the government and its officials and it shed light on the importance of party coalitions.

In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party proved to be more dominant due to the effective alliance it forged between the Southern agrarians and Northern city dwellers.

The election of James Madison in 1808 and James Monroe in 1816 further reinforced the importance of the dominant coalitions within the Democratic-Republican Party.

With the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Quincy Adams from politics, the Federalist Party disintegrated.

After the War of 1812 ended, partisanship subsided across the nation. In the absence of the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party stood unchallenged. The so-called Era of Good Feelings followed this void in party politics, but it did not last long. Some scholars continue to see echoes of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates in modern party politics.

This article was originally published in 2009. Mitzi Ramos is an Instructor of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University.

Read this article:

Anti-Federalists | The First Amendment Encyclopedia