Category Archives: Federalist

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill on Tuesday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fast-tracked to appease leftist Rep. Ilhan Omar after she took offense to a stupid joke made by Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert.

At a recent event, Boebert referred to Omar as being part of the Jihad Squad.

I looked to my left and there she is: Ilhan Omar. And I said, Well, she does not have a backpack, we should be okay, Boebert said.

She later apologized for offending Omar and offered to speak with her about the comments.

Omar, however, was not satisfied after the pairs later phone call and demanded action against Boebert.

I myself have reported hundreds of threats on my life, often triggered by Republican attacks on my faith, Omar said.

If passed, the legislation would create a U.S. State Department office led by a president-appointed envoy focused on documenting and combatting anti-Islamic bigotry worldwide. The broad and vague language employed by the Democrats who drafted the bill, some Republicans say, leaves too much room for concerns and criticisms about true Islamic extremism to be brushed off as Islamophobic hate speech.

As ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Michael McCaul noted in his dissent to the legislation, attacks against Muslims are real and need to be addressed, but the bill does not condemn persecution or gross violations of internationally recognized human rights against Muslims, and Democrats voted down an amendment that would have appropriately focused the new offices efforts of the plight of the Uyghurs and Rohingya, in particular. The act simply offers to document it.

Instead, H.R. 5665, creates a duplicative office and a new special envoy position in the State Department, which it charges with combating Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement, two deliberately vague terms that appear nowhere in federal statute and are defined nowhere in the bill, he said.

Republicans firmly believe that no one should ever be attacked or denied their human rights or dignity because of their religious faith, but this rushed, partisan legislation does not represent a serious legislative effort and is instead a divisive messaging bill that is unlikely to become law, a statement from House Republican Whip Steve Scalise and other GOP leaders stated.

Despite Republicans concerns about the Combating International Islamophobia Act, Pelosi pushed the legislation and allowed it to rush through committee in an effort to quiet Omars leftist allies in the lower chamber, led by Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who demanded that the speaker strip Boebert of her committee assignments over the comments.

After publicly condemning Boebert but refusing to take action against her, Pelosi instead offered to back Omar and Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowskys legislation, which was introduced just two months ago, to shut up the progressives in the House. The Biden administration quickly joined in supporting the act.

Our countrys commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief goes back centuries, and the Administration strongly believes that people of all faiths and backgrounds should be treated with equal dignity and respect around the world, the White House said in a statement on Tuesday.

While the legislation would still have to make it through the Senate and to President Joe Bidens desk before becoming a law, it is expected to pass the House with just Democrat support.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Go here to read the rest:

Pelosi Fast-Tracks 'Anti-Islamophobia' Bill To Appease Omar Over Stupid Boebert Joke - The Federalist

Goodbye, Taylor Swift. Hello, again, Adele.Within hours of its release, Adeles latest album 30 replaced Taylor Swifts re-released Red (Taylors Version) at the top of iTunes charts.

While Adele ended her musical hiatus with a heart-wrenching collection of songs, this album gives her audience more than just a glimpse into her recent divorce.Adele . . . now has an album that ups the stakes and nuance of her artistry, said Jillian Mapers, an editor at Pitchfork. Not just in telling a story over the course of 12 songs . . . but by being bold enough to share it all so vulnerably, with the entire world listening.

Adele is undoubtedly vulnerable, but her decision to share as much as she does in 30 is not bold. Its reckless.

The singer overexposes her life, making 30 as an exercise in too much information. Its TMI about her own life, sure, but at least thats her own business. But even worse, its TMI about the people around her.

Adeles worst offense comes on My Little Love, at the expense of her 9-year-old son. She cries out to him: Im so far gone and youre the only one who can save me. Adele is putting all the pressure on her son to be her refuge. Sheshould have stopped there. Instead, she took the extraordinary step of inserting voice memos from what are apparently real conversations with her son into the song.

I feel like you dont love me, says the boy.

Why do you feel like that? she asks.

Do you like me?

You know mommy doesnt like anyone else like I like you, right?

These moments in My Little Love are striking because they are intimate. Its heart-wrenching to hear Adeles son question his own mothers loveand a conversation like that should remain private. Instead, Adele was willing to exploit her sons fears for the sake of selling songs.

Adele, like all artists, constantly faces the challenge of projecting beauty to her audience in an intimate, honest way. Great artists are genuine, and art that lacks intimacy falls flat.But did her son know she was recording him? Even if he knew, can a 9-year-old really consent to such a thing? Growing up as the child of a celebrity must be difficult and when celebrity parents use their children to advance their career, they make it even harder.

Theres a word for Adeles behavior: oversharing.

Across all social media platforms, oversharing is rampant in our culture. People post text message threads with their significant others and TikToks revealing every occurrence of their day.

There is true beauty in the intricate intimacies of our lives. Artists recognize that beauty, capture it, and form it into something for us to see, read, or hear. Maybe some beautiful moments are worth sharing, but many beautiful moments are worth keeping to yourself.

If every ordinary moment is plastered across Instagram for all to see, it becomes habitual to turn your life into a performance. Suddenly you wake up in the morning deciding what coffee to make based on how good the picture will turn out.

Nobody wants to hear a mediocre break-up song from Adelewe want raw, relatable, earth-shattering beauty. Adele hasnt let her art fall flat, stripping it of honesty and intimacy. But shes crossed lines of consent for the sake of her music and success. Oversharing disregards privacy and can damage people in the process.

Though many may applaud Adele for this vulnerability, her transparency reveals a depth to her heartbreak that we just dont need to hear. She can be intimate and honest without exposing another humans insecuritythat sets apart a truly great artist.

Adeles break-up shouldnt be a movie for all to see. Its possible to write beautiful music without exposing too much.This album is possibly the most intimate and emotional music weve heard all year. But dont let Adeles honest appeal hide her blatant oversharing, and dont let her powerful voice influence your own emotions.

Adele ends her story saying, Id do it all again like I did it.Maybe she will do it all again. If she does, she should go easy on usby keeping it to herself.

The rest is here:

Adele Crossed The Line On '30' - The Federalist

Allyn Walker, a former professor at Old Dominion University who identifies as non-binary, resigned last month following criticism stemming from Walkers views on pedophilia. Walker argued that pedophiles should be destigmatized by identifying them as minor-attracted persons (MAPs) rather than the pejorative term pedophile, because attraction to children is a sexual orientation and not immoral.

The pretense is that pedophiles are more likely to seek treatment if their sexual proclivities are destigmatized. Instead of relying on empirical evidence to determine the reasons for those proclivities or strategies that will keep children safe, Walker relies on queer theoretical tools to argue that pedophiles are wrongly oppressed by societys power structures as a group of the most hated folk devils of our time.

Walker is a queer sociologist and criminologist who uses the lens of queer theory to explain human society and crime.Like other critical theories, queer theory seeks a collective critical consciousness that will identify and dismantle identity power structures and dynamics.

Queer theory seeks to unite oppressed groups that fall outside the privileged normative language categories of sex (male or female) and sexuality (straight, gay, bisexual) into a single, oppressed banner of queer. To do this, it relies on the postmodern knowledge principle, which rejects objective knowledge and favors knowledges that arise from the lived experiences of individuals of certain identity groups.

Walker uses theoretical tools to problematize the treatment of pedophilia as a sexual perversion to achieve her agenda. She uses the power of language to advocate for the new acronym MAP and blurs boundaries of sexuality. The focus is on the collective oppression of pedophiles.

Using a deconstructionist perspective, Walker argues that pedophilia is a social construct. She boldly concludes that sexual attraction to minors is not morally offensive and claims that the vilification of pedophilia is more about control of sexual minorities than it is about the health or safety of children.

Shockingly, this normalization of pedophilia is not unique to Walker. Another professor at ODU, Vanessa Panfil, has worked extensively with Walker on at least one scholarly article advocating for the destigmatization of pedophilia. Panfil appears to still be gainfully employed at ODU. In addition, Michel Foucault (whom Walker cites extensively) petitioned for the removal of sexual consent laws in France. Similarly, Gayle Rubin defended pedophilia in her 1984 essay Thinking Sex.

Missing from Walkers analysis, and the analyses of many who think similarly, are the true victims of pedophilia: children. Walker advocates for the use of engrossing and high quality pornography for pedophiles to resist their sexual attraction to children. Unfortunately, Walker seems to assume that the only victims of child pornography are the people who are prosecuted for it and does not consider the trauma inflicted on children who are trafficked and used in the creation of this high-quality porn.

Walker uses the theoretical tools of queer theory to justify a personal view that adults should be free to fantasize and sexualize children so long as they do not touch them. She has seized on queer theorys position in the social justice movement to justify what appears to be the next logical step for queer theorys dismantling of sexual norms. This must be dismissed outright.

Unfortunately, queer theorys rejection of social constructs designed to protect the most innocent even the outright rejection of childhood innocence has spread as far as grade school pedagogy. The gender unicorn is taught to small children in schools and books like Gender Queer, which contains pornographic comics, are in public school libraries. Social-emotional learning surveys from vendors like Panorama Education ask children in detail about their sexual preferences.

In the name of dismantling power structures and dynamics around sexuality, queer theorists must make things that were once taboo (like sexualizing children) no longer taboo. Queer theorists excuse the immorality of pedophilia away because it helps them achieve their own agenda.

For example, they would claim that queer pedagogy prevents queer children from being othered at school. Yet, that conclusion assumes that children should be sexualized in the first place. Furthermore, to reach that conclusion, the benefits of queer children not being othered must outweigh the risks of sexualizing children and of exposing them to books and information that would at least in some states run afoul of obscenity laws.

That conclusion is far from settled. In fact, given the obscenity laws currently in place in certain states, it would seem that our society has determined that sexualizing children remains off-limits to private individuals and so it should remain with schools.

Before we allow ourselves to be swayed by any theoretical excuses to change the societal norms that protect children, we must all decide how far our collective moral consciousness will allow the social justice movement to go in its exploitation of our boundaries. I suggest that we have allowed it to go quite far enough. The sexualization of children has no place in schools or in our society. It is simply one boundary that should not be exploited.

Jennifer Rawls is a practicing attorney and single mother. In her free time, she has spent the past year trying to understand why children are being sexualized and indoctrinated with political agendas in school.

Read more:

Defending Pedophilia Is The Logical Conclusion Of Queer Theory - The Federalist

Facebook admitted that its so-called fact-checking program is actually cranking out opinions used to censor certain viewpoints.

In its latest legal battle with TV journalist John Stossel over a post about the origins of the deadly 2020 California forest fires, Facebook, now rebranded and referred to as Meta, claims that its fact-checking program should not be the target of a defamation suit because its attempts to regulate content are done by third-party organizations who are entitled to their opinion.

Stossels original complaint questioned whether Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a fact-check and is partly false, and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made? Facebook, however, claimed that the counter article authored by Climate Feedback is not necessarily the tech giants responsibility.

Facebook went on to complain that Stossels problem isnt with the Silicon Valley giants labels on his content but with the obscure organizations that Facebook employs to do its fact-checking dirty work.

The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion, Facebook admitted. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedbacks separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossels complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.

Its no secret that Facebook uses its fact-checking program to curb information that it wants to be censored, and this November lawsuit gives more insight into the Big Tech companys methods and twisted rationale.

The independence of the fact checkers is a deliberate feature of Metas fact-checking program, designed to ensure that Meta does not become the arbiter of truth on its platforms, the lawsuit stated before admitting that Meta identifies potential misinformation for fact-checkers to review and rate. [I]t leaves the ultimate determination whether information is false or misleading to the fact-checkers. And though Meta has designed its platforms so that fact-checker ratings appear next to content that the fact-checkers have reviewed and rated, it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Continued here:

Facebook Quietly Admits Its Third-Party 'Fact-Checks' Are 'Opinions' - The Federalist

Americans are returning to normal despite the corporate medias attempts to drum up alarm over the supposedly highly transmissible Omicron variant of COVID-19.

While corporate media outlets panicked and revived permanent pandemic narratives and talk of more lockdowns, a new poll from CBS News and YouGov found that of 1,731 people surveyed, 81 percent said they have not rearranged plans because of the Omicron variant or the hype surrounding it. In fact, a majority said they still plan to keep their normal holiday traditions and routines. Sixty-eight percent still plan to gather with friends and family, 64 percent said they will do their Christmas shopping in person, and 52 percent said they will eat in a restaurant.

Only 17 percent of those surveyed said they were very concerned about Omicron, while about 42 percent said they were not concerned at all about Omicron despite the initial media and bureaucracy-induced panic about it.

These Americans thoughts on Omicron are validated by the data. As it turns out, not one single COVID-19-related death in the U.S. from Dec. 1-8 was found to be caused by the Omicron variant. As of Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that of the 43 people infected with the Omicron strain of COVID, most cases manifested only mild symptoms such as a cough, fatigue, and congestion or a runny nose.

The CDC report also found that one individual, who was vaccinated, required a brief hospital stay and that a majority of cases, 79 percent, were in fully vaccinated individuals.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Controls measures of Omicron produced similar results in a report released Sunday.

There have been no Omicron-related deaths reported thus far, the European health agency claimed, noting that most cases of Omicron-related COVID presented as either asymptomatic or mild.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

See the rest here:

Still No Omicron Deaths, And Americans Are Getting On With Their Lives - The Federalist

Professor Kim McLarin has a history of writing racially divisive essays. She was nominated to be the next interim dean of graduate and professional studies at Bostons Emerson College.

Emerson College, a liberal arts college in Boston, has nominated creative writing professor Kim McLarin to be its next interim dean of graduate and professional studies. McLarin is a racial segregationist who doesnt believe that blacks and whites can be friends and divorced her husband because of his race.

William Gilligan, Emerson Colleges interim president, announced McLarins acceptance of the position last month; McLarin will begin her new role on January 1, 2022.

McLarin is known for her racially divisive anti-white rhetoric. In 2019, she wrote an article for The Washington Post entitled Can Black Women and White Women be True Friends? She writes that black women and white women will never be able to have true friendships.

Generally speaking, its not that I dislike white women. Generally speaking, its that I do not trust them. Generally speaking, most black women dont, she observes.

McLarin claims that many black women have decided to cut ties with white people due to their racial differences. White women are just too much trouble to be around, they told her.

In a separate article for The New York Times, McLarin shows that her anti-white hate is not limited solely to white women. She states she will not date any man who is white. This piece was published in September 2006, just after McLarin divorced her ex-husband, who is white. She admits that her ex-husbands race played a significant role in her decision to end the relationship.

Less than a month before her nomination, McLarin wrote an article for The Sun Magazine entitled On White Violence, Black Survival, and Learning To Shoot.

If a civil war breaks out, I say, if violent white mobs begin roaming the country as they have done in the past, I will not worry about precision shooting. I intend to sit on my porch with my legally acquired handgun and as much ammunition as I have and perhaps a bottle of Scotch and take them as they come. I say as much to my husband. My husband, understandably, is shocked. Hes not sure he believes me. Im pretty sure he should.

In an article she wrote in the last days of Barack Obamas presidency, she claimed that black-white buddy films, the Best Black Friend in sitcoms, and most Morgan Freeman movies are tools for White America to remain at the center of black consciousness.

McLarins nomination came only a few weeks after Emerson College suspended Turning Point USA from campus. The right-of-center student club, where I serve as chapter president, was accused of bias-related behavior for criticizing the Chinese Communist Party.

The organization had been handing out stickers that said China Kinda Sus, in reference to the Chinese government. The stickers depicted a character from the game Among Us and the symbol of the Chinese Communist Party, which should make it obvious it was referring to no one other than the authoritarian government of China.

Gilligan released a public statement calling the stickers anti-Asian bigotry and announcing that Emerson College would investigate Turning Point USA. The investigation concluded that the stickers did not target anyone other than the Chinese government but that handing them out had a discriminatory effect given the pervasive environment of anti-Asian discrimination that has developed over the past several years.

Many students are now calling out Gilligans hypocrisy for weaponizing racism when it comes to targeting students but turning a blind eye to McLarins racially divisive rhetoric.

An Emerson College student who preferred to remain anonymous commented on the issue:I do not agree with everything Turning Point USA stands for, but, as a member of the LGBT community, I believe students should have the right to criticize governments that send homosexuals to concentration camps.

Attacking people for the color of their skin is not right and history has repeatedly shown us that, the student concluded.

Emerson College was asked to comment for this article but did not.

Sam Neves is a former leftist and a correspondent for Campus Reform. He is a marketing major at Emerson College. After graduation, Sam plans to attend law school and continue his mission to fight for people who do not have a voice.

More here:

Racially Divisive Professor Promoted To Interim Dean At Emerson College - The Federalist

The Biden administrationannounced it will hold a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, meaning U.S. athletes will still attend and compete, but the U.S. government wont send any officials. The Chinese government vowed to retaliate.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration made the decision due to Chinas ongoing human rights violations. Activists and human rights organizations have been calling to boycott the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics since 2015. The Chinese governments recent forced disappearance and reappearance of Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai has only energized the boycotting Beijing Winter Olympics movement. The Biden administrations announcement is a welcome step.

But the announcement took place at the same time the administration faced criticism of its lobbying Congress to weaken a bill regarding the forced labor of Uyghurs. Those two contradictory actions raise questions about whether the administration is committed to standing up to China and upholding universal values such as human rights.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, aiming to ensure that goods tainted with the forced labor of Uyghurs, and others, in the Xinjiang do not enter the U.S. market. In July, the U.S. Senatepassed its version of a similar bill co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. But House Democrats stalled the bill until it passed Wednesday 428-1, as the Biden administration asked Democrats to slow and water down the bill.

Two key players led the Biden administrations lobbying efforts. One is the administrations climate czar John Kerry, who reportedly lobbied against the bill out of the fear it would dissuade Beijings cooperation on climate change. Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska,andTom Cotton, R-Ark.,criticized Kerry on social media.

Another key player is Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. According to the Washington Posts Josh Rogin, Shermans specific criticism relates to a part of the bill that would require a presumption that all products coming from Xinjiang are tainted by forced labor unless the importer can prove otherwise. Big corporations such asApplehave been lobbying against the same provision since last year. It is not a coincidence that the Biden administration and big corporations interests are aligned.

Frustrated by House Democrats inaction, Rubio reintroduced the Uyghur forced labor bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate Democrats used a procedural excuseto block the vote on Rubios amendment. Rubiotweeted, The Biden Administration is actively working to stop the passage of an anti-slavery bill targeting # Chinas genocide. That is why they dont want my amendment on this to get on the defense bill.

Why did the Biden administration act as if the Chinese Communist Partys (CCP) atrocities against Uyghur Muslims is reason to hold a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics, but not to support a bill that will prevent goods tainted with forced Uyghur laborers blood, sweat, and tears from entering the U.S. market?

Since day one, the Biden administrations China policy has been full of contradictions like these. On the one hand, it continued some of former President Donald Trumps tough approaches on China, including expanding the Trump-era blacklist of Chinese companies that Americans companies should not invest in.

The Biden administration also deepened the U.S. partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom by establishing the AUKUS. This alliance will begin with helping Australia develop nuclear-powered submarines as a counterweight to Chinas naval expansion in the Asia Pacific.

On the other hand, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondoannounced plans to bring American executives to China and further deepen Sino-U.S. economic ties as if everything is fine.The Biden administration also repeatedlycapitulatedto the CCPs hostage diplomacy.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) set free China telecom giant Huaweis senior executive Meng Wanzhou, although Mengadmittedshe was guilty of some of DOJs charges. In return, China released two Canadian hostages it had detained since 2018.

Days before president Biden and Chinese leader Xi Xinpings virtual summit, the Biden administrationsent back to China seven Chinese nationals who were found guilty and served prison terms in the United States. In return, China permitted one U.S. citizen it illegally detained and never formally charged to return to the United States.

During Biden and Xis highly anticipated virtual summit, Biden didnt even bring up important topics such as how the CCP has obstructed an international investigation of the origins of Covid-19.

The Biden administrations messages on Taiwan are especially confusing. During a CNN town hall, President Biden said that the United States was committed to defending Taiwan if it came under attack from China. The next day the White House clarified that the president wasnt announcing any policy on Taiwan. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, warned: Words are important, and we cant be careless in how we talk about an issue that is so vital to U.S. interests and the security of the Indo-Pacific.

It seems that after being on the job for almost a year, the Biden administration still doesnt have a coherent China policy. The mixed signals the administration sent are problematic for three reasons.

First, they do not inspire confidence in the American people that the administration has the competency to protect them and American interests. Consequently, people may not want to lend the administration the popular support it needs to make difficult choices when confronting China.

Second, when the United States needs its allies to establish a united front to stand up to China and uphold universal values, few will follow the U.S. lead because of a lack of confidence that the Biden administration has the political will to see it through.

Third, the CCP may take the Biden administrations mixed signals as a sign of weakness and be encouraged to take risky actions, such as invading Taiwan sooner rather than later. Chinas invasion of Taiwan will not only threaten regional peace but also jeopardize the survival of the liberal democratic world order.

The great power struggle between the United States and China is the most consequential event in our lifetime. Ambiguity in policies and mixed signals could lead to disastrous consequences. The Biden administration needs to show clarity, commitment, and coherence in its China policy.

Here is the original post:

Diplomatic Boycott Of Olympics Shows Biden Admin's Weakness On China - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Tony Woodlief, executive vice president of the State Policy Network, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his book I, Citizen: A Blueprint for Reclaiming American Self-Governance.

The big enemy were facing right now is a massive unelected federal bureaucracy, Woodlief said. For every law passed by Congress, federal agencies pass 27 regulations that have the full force of federal law. So theres no way now to stop them, even if Congress woke up tomorrow and was suddenly interested in doing its damn job. So then youve got to ask how do we push back against these federal agencies, and where I land is, its got to be networks of communities and think tanks and litigation groups at the state level who, through unified action, begin to push back.

Self-governance, Woodlief said, is something that was present and valued at the nations creation and needs to return as a priority in the United States.

I feel Im a radical centrist. I embrace the radical idea that in a democracy, the centrist ought to have a say. And so if thats what we mean by populism, then yeah, it is, its trusting people. But I think thats what the founders did. They put in roadblocks so that the best parts of us would have the greatest likelihood of surfacing in terms of who runs the government, in terms of the decisions the government makes, but they didnt set up a system where we the people had no say. They wanted the best of the people to come forward, Woodlief said.

Read the original post:

What Does 'Self-Governance' Look Like In The Era Of Community Decay? - The Federalist

A Texas realtor charged after going to the Capitol on Jan. 6 for what she thought was a peaceful political march said she plans to lose weight and become a better person while she serves her prison sentence.

Jenna Ryan was fined $1,500 and sentenced to 60 days in a Texas prison beginning early next year after she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of parading on Capitol grounds last month.

Sentenced to 60 days prison for 2 mins 8 sec in doorway, Ryans Twitter bio states.

In a recent video posted to her TikTok account, Ryan explained that if she can lose approximately 30 pounds working out while shes serving her time, then it will be worth going to prison for 60 days.

I have to report to prison, and the only thing that I can see thats good about having to go to prison is that Im going to be able to work out a lot and do a lot of yoga and detox, she explained while she posed in front of a mirror in her workout clothes. You have to look at the bright side of everything you do, and thats what Im trying to do. So wish me luck!

In a subsequent video, Ryan explained that shes not looking forward to a crappy, crappy time in prison but is trying to stay positive to enjoy her beautiful life on the other side of this.

Im going to go through hell. Its going to be awful going to prison, but Im a very positive person and so I tried to look at the bright side of everything, Ryan said.And the only benefit of going to prison is that Ill be able to read books thats all there is to do: read books, and work out. So thats what I plan to do: I plan to read books, work out, become a better person, really work on myself, and make the best of a horrible, horrible situation.

Ryan said that while this is absolutely the worst experience I have ever endured and admitted that she often cries herself to sleep at night, shes not going to give up fighting.

Im the kind of person that gets up and fights and keeps going and keeps trying. And every day that Im in prison, Im going to set my intention to become a better person, a smarter person by reading wonderful books. Im going to become more faithful to God by reading my Bible. Im going to work out, work on my body, and really have an opportunity to not do the things that you can do whatever youre out here in civilization.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read the original here:

J6 Convict On TikTok: If I Can Lose 30 Lbs During My 60 Days In Jail, It Will Be Worth It - The Federalist

A century ago, America began a new era in education known as the High School Movement. It was not a mandate imposed from Washington, but a widespread series of local efforts. As industrialization reduced the need for farm labor, the nation began to move from an economy based on physical strength to one based on knowledge. Levels of education rose across the country.

High school was meant to be a place where students could prepare for a professional career. And it worked. But now, high school has become a meaningless credential as administrators and politicians have steadily reduced the standards for graduation. Efforts like those of Gov. Kate Brown in Oregon to further diminish those standards will be the final blow to the once-great movement for state-supported self-improvement.

While public schools had existed for decades at the turn of the last century, most students did not attend long into their teenage years, leaving instead to find work and begin their adult lives. As detailed in a 1999 article by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, in 1910, just 9 percent of American youths earned a high school diploma, but by 1935, 40 percent did. Expanding education that much was not cheap, but the country was growing more prosperous and crucially leading figures in communities across the nation wanted to see that prosperity spread out and multiplied.

The High School Movement was progressive in the literal sense of the word: it impelled real progress for American families, giving kids of every background a chance to better themselves through hard work in school then a better job and a more comfortable life than their parents had. But simple credentialing would not accomplish that: these new or expanded high schools had to teach people something useful, not just warehouse them for four years and print out a diploma.

As one might expect, the early effects were concentrated among white, middle-class students, but that gradually spread out. Once concentrated in big Northern cities, high schools spread south and west and into the countryside. After the Supreme Court ordered desegregation in the 1950s, that came to include black southerners, as well.

The expanded education system was designed to prepare millions of American kids for the working world, offering both academic and vocational education. It worked. Again, quoting Goldin and Katz: Prior to 1900, secondary schools in much of America often trained youths to gain entry to particular colleges and universities in their vicinity. During the period of the high school movement, however, secondary education was transformed into training for life, rather than for college.

Preparation for life meant holding young men and women to real standards. Its hard to look at modern public schools and say that those standards remain intact. While progressivism once drove educators to offer more classes and demand more of students, the current version of that ideology is now demanding that educational achievement take a back seat to racial quotas and that standards be reduced or even eliminated.

Some of the biggest successes of the High School Movement came in New York City. The magnet schools there were a pathway to middle-class prosperity for New Yorkers of humble means, giving many without wealth or connections a chance to rise by their own merit. But since taking office in 2014, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has been working to demagnetize the magnet schools because he disapproved of their racial balance.

As reported in City Journal in 2019, de Blasios School Diversity Advisory Group recommends the elimination of ability and performance screening for pupils, and condemns attendance & punctuality metrics as exclusionary against Black and Latinx [sic] applicants. Calling it exclusionary to require students to show up on time is part of the weird anti-racism of our time that invokes harmful stereotypes that used to be uttered only by racists. But more than that, the plans to remove standards will make it impossible for prospective employers and colleges to know that a graduates diploma means anything at all.

In Oregon, Brown and Democrats in the state legislature have gone even farther in dumbing down high school. Blaming the COVID-19 pandemic, Oregon Democrats effectively removed any standards for high school graduation. As The Oregonian noted in August 2021 when Brown signed the bill into law: an Oregon high school diploma will be no guarantee that the student who earned it can read, write or do math at a high school level.

Brown signed the bill in private, tacitly acknowledging the shame of the thing. When her staff did finally speak to reporters on the subject, they used the same bizarre racial justifications that de Blasios committee did. In an emailed statement to The Oregonian, Charles Boyle, Browns deputy communications director, said that suspending the reading, writing, and math proficiency requirements would benefit Oregons Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.

Public high schools began as a way for all American children to learn and improve their employment opportunities through their own hard work. No tuition, no pedigree, no connections, only hard work and intelligence were required.

If Americans were looking for equality of opportunity across race, religion, class, and neighborhood, this was it. Now, after pushing kids away from vocational education in past decades, public schools water down the academic qualifications so much as to make them meaningless.

In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush called this sort of condescending attitude the soft bigotry of low expectations. That bigotry has taken over the progressive movement. A few middle-class parents who can afford it will take their kids out of schools that teach little and grade less, but most of them (and all of the poor) have no such option.

They will be stuck in a system that expects nothing of kids and abolishes standards rather than helping kids live up to them. Meanwhile, a supposedly meritocratic elite locks in generational power by choosing private schools that help their children advance even further. So much for progress.

Read this article:

Erasing All High School Standards In The Name Of Racism Is Bigotry - The Federalist