Category Archives: Federalist

Twitter announced a new set of rules on Tuesday that effectively bans the dissemination of memes and the mockery of public figures.

The changes come one day after Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey resigned to usher in a new era under free-speech foe and new CEO Parag Agrawal, who, while he served as Twitters chief technology officer, expressed disregard for the First Amendment.

Under the new Twitter policy, photos of public figures will be subject to removal based on the censorship platforms desires.

This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse, the policy states. However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.

Twitter clarified that exceptions would be made for content that you guessed it corrupt left-wing corporate media outlets deem acceptable.

We will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared and, in such cases, we may allow the images or videos to remain on the service. For instance, we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community.

As some Twitter users pointed out, with this new policy, the Big Tech company has carved out a way to justify removing or banning any content it deems irrelevant and effectively solidifies Twitters role as a gatekeeper of information instead of the free-speech platform it once claimed to be.

These tactics have, of course, been used by Twitter in the past to justify stifling the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story, subduing content about COVID-19 treatments and vaccine side effects, and intentionally deplatforming former President Donald Trump. But the updated policy suggests the Silicon Valley giants net is getting wider and seeks to stop even the smallest of accounts from sharing information that could damage Democrats or their propaganda narratives.

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 more:

Twitter's New Rule Lets It Selectively Ban Memes, Mockery Of Democrats - The Federalist

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organizationa case considering the constitutionality of Mississippis Gestational Age Act which, with some exceptions, bans abortions after 15 weeks. While in granting certiorari the Supreme Court limited the question on appeal to whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, Wednesdays arguments focused more broadly on whether the high court should overrule Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Even then, however, the vast majority of the nearly two hours of argument considered not the fundamental question of whether there is a constitutional right to abortion; instead, the justices dueled over stare decisis and Caseys reliance on that prudential principle to affirm Roe. The courts focus during argument on stare decisis and Casey may cause concern that the justices will again refuse to right the wrong that began in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. It shouldnt, though, because the originalist justices on the court can allow Casey to hoist itself upon its own petard.

The way forward here is clear, but likely unseen by the majority of Americans who wrongly believe Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.

While the Supreme Court first gleaned a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade from the amorphous penumbras emanating from the Constitution, less than 20 years later Roes approach to abortion was abandoned. A plurality of the court in Casey, consisting of Justices David Souter, Sandra Day OConnor, and Anthony Kennedy, ignored the reasoning of Roeand instead concluded abortion garnered constitutional protection based on the justices reasoned judgment of the meaning of liberty.

After announcing they were upholding what they framed as the essential holding of Roethe concept of a constitutional right to abortionthe majority then overruled Roes trimester approach to adjudicating abortion regulations, calling it too rigid. Instead, Casey replaced the strict scrutiny standard of Roe with the command that, before viability, states not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

Significantly, though, the strut beneath the Casey courts analysis was stare decisis, a prudential principle, translated from the Latin to mean, to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.It was stare decisis, and the institutional integrity that principle seeks to safeguard, that together with the justices reasoned judgment of liberty, compelled the court to conclude that a womans right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle ofRoe v. Wade, and that the justices could not renounce that rule of law and a component of liberty.

During the various colloquy yesterday, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan returned often to Casey and stare decisis, far exceeding any focus on the Constitution proper, with Justice Breyer saying of the courts opinion in Casey: Its about stare decisis and how we approach it, and I hope everybody reads this. Its at 505 U.S. 854 to 869.

Yes, everybody should read it, because Casey gives the credence to overturn the misguided abortion jurisprudence that has divided our country for 50 years.

As that portion of the courts decision explained, the rule ofstare decisisis not an inexorable command, and certainly it is not such in every constitutional case. Rather, as the Casey court explained, there are a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case.

The court then detailed those considerations, including whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability, or whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation. Likewise, the court should consider whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, or whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.

These same considerations that Casey relied upon nearly 30 years ago to justify affirming Roe provide the precise basis to overturn Casey today. The practical workability the court praised proved nothing of the kind, with the substantial burden test creating a constant revolving door to the courthouse from the governors desk upon signing any legislation regulating abortion. And with each new case comes a new hit on the integrity of the court, as the populace sees the outcomes preordained by the predilections of the judge: Is he a right knee-jerk judge or a left-knee jerk judge?

This perception becomes a reality when the question before the court concerns not a legal one, but one of burdens: something legislators are well-suited to consider, but not those trained in the law.

Not only does Caseys undue burden standard prove unworkable, but its continued viability remains in question, with the Supreme Court oscillating between a view that only the burdens of a regulation are considered to a framework that considers both the benefits of the law and the burden. Such a weighing of benefits and burdens would prove even more unworkable, other than for politicians and judges acting as such.

That continuing shift in abortion jurisprudence also highlights the reality that Roe is but a remnant long ago frayed, and Caseys attempt to salvage the essential holding of Roe adds nothing to the constitutional correctness of the decision.

But most significant of all are the facts that have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, not just from 1973, but from 1992. Society and laws have so changed that the idea that women need abortion to have personal or professional options no longer has even a surface semblance of truth. The removal of the stigma of single motherhood, greater educational advances, family-centric workplaces, maternity and paternity leave, Family and Medical Leave Act leave, and remote working all counterclaims of Casey that women need abortion to plot out their lives.

Scientific advances likewise have so changed that the court should see things differentlyif only the justices would look. The rudimentary sonograms used at the time of Roe make the descriptor of fetuses as mere clumps of cells more understandable, but the high-tech 4D ultrasounds of today establish beyond doubt the humanity of the unborn. Advances in medical equipment and surgery techniques now also make it possible to operate on the fetus in utero with regularity. And science now shows that fetuses experience pain much earlier than thought.

While Justice Sotomayor framed doctors explaining this as fringe, and not qualified experts, she either did not read the amicus curiae briefs and research or she blindly accepted the narrative of abortion activists. As Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a radiologist, whom with two other female physicians submitted a friend of the court brief in support of Mississippis law, told this author after yesterdays oral argument, researchers who study neural pathways and cortical development have come to believe that fetal pain may be experienced as early as 12 weeks.

Certainly the highly specialized surgeons who operate on fetuses would never think of doing so without properly anesthetizing their little patients, Christie added. Anything else, they know, would be highly cruel and unethical.

The science alone should overcome any sway of stare decisisand thats applying the standards set forth in Casey.

Caseys reliance on the Courts legitimacy, to affirm Roes essential holding, now also cuts the other way because what the Supreme Court in Casey failed to recognize is that they had destroyed their own credibility by announcing to the country that they were more concerned with appearing apolitical and unaffected by public opinion than the constitutional soundness of their opinion. Yesterdays obsession by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan with stare decisis as a means of showing the public it is not affected by whichever side yells the loudest only confirms that public opinion matters to the justices.

Nor would affirming Casey solve the courts legitimacy problem, as even Justice Breyer seemed to acknowledge. No matter how the court rules, one side will see the justices as political creatures. Where people are really opposed on both sides and they really fight each other, theyre going to be ready to say, no, youre just political, youre just politicians, Justice Breyer pondered, adding Thats what kills us as an American institution.

No, what killed the Supreme Court as an American institution was its refusal to interpret the Constitution as written and then, rather than fix the mistake, claim that its reasoned judgment and a fear of public disregard prevent it from doing so.

Heres hoping the court has learned from its mistakes: both in Roe and in Casey.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Link:

Supreme Court Should Allow Bad Abortion Law To Die By Its Own Hand - The Federalist

The Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Human Relations, Diversity & Equity prepared a presentationthat told students critical race theory isnt being taught in schools while the district made presentations that did precisely that. The district also mandated that teachers take an antiracism course taught by a known critical race theorist who told them to challenge whiteness.

A LAUSD presentation titled Critical Race Theory and Racism in K-12 Education starts out by defining the theory as a Theoretical Framework through which researchers and scholars try to understand how structural and racial inequities exist and endure in our society.

The PowerPoint implores students to rename a headline referring to critical race theory, since we now understand that Critical Race Theory is not taught in schools. A separate document, which claims there is no evidence that CRT is widespread in K-12 education, is also listed on LAUSDs website.

Although administrators at LAUSD claim CRT isnt taught in their schools, the district created lesson plans that embed the corrosive theory in their very own classrooms, all after the district brought in a critical race theorist to tell teachers how to challenge whiteness.

The LAUSD Office of Human Relations, Diversity and Equity introduces its advisory lessons by highlighting their desire to speak with students about power, privilege, oppression, and resistance.The section of the website labeled Human Relations, Diversity & Equity lists several critical race theory-inspired presentations, including slideshows that teach Thanksgiving is evil and propose an alternative holiday.

One presentation told students to check their privilege and included a video called What is Privilege.It shows people engaging in a privilege walk, an activity that I had to do six years ago as a freshman at my California high school. In it, people line up and take steps forward or backward depending on their answer to a series of questions. It is incredibly easy to manipulate the results through selective questioning in order to make people believe CRTs sweeping claims of privilege and oppression based on skin color.

The presentation claims that white people, among others, are uniquely privileged, before telling students how to become an ally of left wing social justice movements.Theres also a slideshow about the Black Lives Matter movement that includes a note signed by the LAUSD Human Relations, Diversity and Equity team. The presentation mocks the phrase all lives matter in a comic.

It also includes the infamous tagline We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family and featured a grab bag of intersectional insanity, imploring students to celebrate queer people, dismantle patriarchal practices, and undermine hetero normative thinking. One graphic demanded that our society fund counselors not cops and mandate black history and ethnic studies.

The presentation discussed white supremacy, which it defined as The belief that white people are better than other races and claimed that Some systems, like schools and jails, have white supremacy built into them because white people have had so much power for so long.

The administrators are evidently not fazed by the irony of peddling the conspiracy theory that Americas schools are fundamentally controlled by hegemonic white supremacy while they, as influential members of the nations second-largest school district, engender animosity against their white students by offering a state-sponsored crash course on racial identity politics.

A wide variety of other presentations also peddled the same themes and pushed for CRT.

Teaching critical race theory and then lying about its presence in schools isnt new. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, has claimed CRT isnt taught in schools after her organization boasted of teaching it on national television.

One slideshow focused on the Cleveland Indians changing their name, claiming that various teams were named after racial slurs and that Native Americans are the only people group whose identity has been turned into a mascot, conveniently forgetting about teams such as the Minnesota Vikings, Boston Celtics, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

A whole section on the LAUSD website is dedicated to Election, Insurrection, and More. One slideshow focused on domestic terrorism, invoking Jan. 6, 2020. It also features discussion of white supremacist domestic terrorism, while making no mention of Black Lives Matter riots or the rape and murder-infested Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

When asked why the Human Relations, Diversity and Equity team told students that CRT is not being taught in schools despite teaching it themselves, the teams coordinator Judy Chiasson avoided the issue, responding, We encourage students to hear different perspectives, become critical thinkers, and build camaraderie across identities so they may become the leaders of tomorrow.

Lest you believe these presentations were simply the handiwork of a rogue team of far left administrators, turn your attention to this memorandum from the LAUSD that mandates that teachers take a course dubbed the Anti-Racist Journey.

The series was taught by Tyrone C. Howard, a UCLA professor and critical race theorist. Howard wrote the foreword to a book titled Critical Race Theory in Teacher Education: Informing Classroom Culture and Practice, which promotes the widespread application of Critical Race Theory.He also co-authored an academic article titled Critical Race Theory 20 Years Later: Where Do We Go From Here? which lays out an intersectional approach for the future of CRT.

During the training, Howard tells teachers to celebrate people of color, and then discusses the need to challenge whiteness, which he bizarrely connects to ideas of merit and individualism.As Howard and one facilitator guide notes, Whiteness does not mean an indictment of white people and refers to a majority perspective and construct.

But critical race theorists frequently use the term to secure this indictment. Psychoanalyst Donald Moss published an article claiming that whiteness is a parasitic condition without a permanent cure, while Noel Ignatiev, the communist and Harvard lecturer who founded the journal Race Traitor and claimed that treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity, argued that abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.

Yet were somehow expected to believe that these critical race advocates are just trying to end racism. Theyre not being anti-white. Theyve simply constructed an ideology around attributing some of the worst evils to whiteness.

In the face of the districts lies, there might be reason to rejoice. It might be an indicator that even school districts in incredibly far-left areas have realized just how quickly theyre losing groundon the issueamong decent people of all races.By lying, LAUSD mightve accidentally admitted a greater truth about critical race theory: that parents and voters can stop it.

Howard, the LAUSD School Board, and Superintendent Reilly did not respond to requests for comment.

Here is the original post:

LA Public Schools Host Critical Race Theorist To 'Challenge Whiteness' - The Federalist

Liberalism has a democracy problem. At least, thats what liberals, including self-described conservative liberals, are saying. For example, New York Times columnist David Brooks is fretting about the possibility of conservatives using state power to break up and humble the big corporations and to push back against coastal cultural values. The culture war merges with the economic-class war and a new right emerges to rally the masses against the cultural/corporate elites.

That sounds awesome.

But Brooks is horrified at the prospect of conservatives using democracy to defend traditional values and American livelihoods. He is dismissive of the idea that the corporate elite, the media elite, the political elite, and the academic elite have all coagulated into one axis of evil, dominating every institution and controlling the channels of thought, but this aggregation of power is obviously real and hostile to us, he just doesnt want to do anything about it. Dont we know that imposing values and shaping economic conditions are for bureaucrats and oligarchs, not ordinary people?

This attitude is typical of many pundits who see conservatisms task as the preservation of liberalism. This view is common among self-described conservatives working in elite institutions and media, and is epitomized by David Frenchs infamous declaration that drag queen story hours in public libraries are among the blessings of liberty. French argues that those who would restrict such things are dangerously illiberal.

This view is rooted in an acceptance of modern liberal ideology as the fulfillment of the American ideal. As Bret Stephens put it, the purpose of American conservatism is to conserve the substantive principles of 1776 that is, of the open mind and the ever more open society. This is a mistaken understanding of conservatism, and therefore it is no surprise that its advocates are perpetually attacking other conservatives. French in particular views himself as a prophetic voice, but his ideas of prophesy is going to Nineveh to condemn Israel.

It is true that some liberal elements, such as limited government and individual rights, are an essential part of our nations heritage. But conservative liberals, let alone left-liberals, dont know when to stop. Instead of a practical liberalism based on a humble recognition of human finitude and fallibility, they have devoted themselves to a liberal ideology at odds with the American patrimony.

Historically, liberal practices, from representative government to trial by jury, developed before liberal ideology. And the influence of early liberal theories, such as those developed by John Locke, were greatly moderated by classical and Christian ideas, as well as the practical experience of American self-government.

This experiential and intellectual mix ensured that the root of Americas historical liberalism was humility. This liberalism recognized that humans are finite and fallen beings, and therefore it divided and limited power.

But what Brooks and his ideological comrades are championing is not this modest liberalism of the American Founding, instantiated in longstanding institutions and practices, and codified in the Constitution. Americans did not shy away from moral judgments in the public sphere, or efforts to order public affairs toward the good. Historically, American law and society regulated subjects from sex and family life to the Sabbath.

In contrast, modern liberal ideology proclaims even mild moral regulation to be harbingers of totalitarianism and theocracy. But by doubting the prudential ability of the people to avoid such excesses, it itself plunges into excess.

Modern liberalism expands and distorts the old liberal humility of limited power into a value-neutral moral relativism that disdains any external arbiters of right and wrong. Instead of the belief that government power should be limited because we are fallen, there is the belief that nothing should limit the freedom of the autonomous, self-creating individual, and that government power should be deployed to remove obstacles to self-realization.

This liberalism pretends to be unable to distinguish between good and evil, God and the devil, sin and sanctity, sanity and delusion. This extends liberal neutrality far beyond what the Constitution requires, or what can be practically enacted.

Liberal proceduralism and neutrality are impossible in family life and education, for instance, and in these areas liberals often become undemocratic on behalf of their hypertrophied liberalism. That many liberals do not realize this simply shows that they have deluded themselves the problem with trying to place yourself behind liberal theorist John Rawls veil of ignorance is that you might succeed in making yourself stupid enough to believe that your own perspective is in fact a neutral one.

Thus, there is an incoherence to liberalisms semi-official relativism, for it relies on smuggling some moral views back into political life as supposedly neutral liberal norms. This is manifest in the tendency to try to forestall democratic debate and decisions by insisting that what the people want is illiberal. When Andrew Sullivan bemoans the illiberalism of removing sexually explicit materials from school libraries, he is not actually supporting liberal neutrality, but instead advocating for the inclusion of such material in government schools, even if parents in particular and the community in general object.

Declaring that parental and democratic involvement in schools, from curricula to libraries, is illegitimate doesnt mean that decisions will be neutral, just that they will be made according to the biases of teachers, administrators, librarians and suchlike. And this pattern is repeated on issue after issue, with conservative liberals insisting that left-liberals must be allowed to win in the name of liberal norms.

This framing attempts to put the essential question of who decides beyond the realm of democratic politics. Liberal conservatives are appalled at the idea of using democracy to do anything about the consolidation of elite power against us. Yet, to take one example, there is nothing neutral or natural in allowing social media giants to act as publishers who choose what content to suppress or elevate, while shielding them from the legal liabilities of publishing.

Right-liberals profess to being afraid of state power. And it is dangerous. But for ordinary people, conservative government may be the only defense against the combined power of elites in business, media, tech, and academia.

It is time for conservative liberals such as Brooks and French to realize that the preservation of Americas true liberal heritage requires democratic reaction against oligarchy. Conservatives leaders should be rallying the people against the cultural and corporate elites and keeping drag queens away from children would be a good start.

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

Go here to see the original:

No, The Right Doesn't Exist To Save The Left From Its Own Folly - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, The Daily Wires Matt Walsh joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his new book Johnny the Walrus and why its important to push back on the lefts attempts to brainwash children with radical gender theory.

There may have been a point in our culture where we could have combated some of this stuff in a gentle kind of way but if that ever would have worked, were way past that now. And sometimes in order to get above the din and all the noise and everything and all the competing noise, you have to shout a little bit and be firm, Walsh said.

Walsh said the left has started a war on reality that warrants a response.

I dont think thats hyperbolic. I think thats actually what is happening. I think that ultimately the goal is to, whatever you want to call it, I say the left but the church of woke, whatever phrase you want to use, for the people who represent this idea what is happening is unmistakable that theyre trying to break down reality itself to build their own sort of alternate universe, Walsh said.

Read the original post:

Matt Walsh Wants To Beat The Left At Their Own Game - The Federalist

Ask any public high school student: violent in-school fights are on the rise and discipline is on the decline. Just consider one public high school: Madison East in Madison, Wisconsin.

In late September, local media reported a series of disturbing cell phone videos depicting vicious fights and beatings occurring in class and on school grounds over the course of several days. Then, several hundred students walked out of school twice in one week protesting the schools sexual harassment policies.

The protest apparently spilled over to other local high schools, resulting in marauding groups of students causing harm to others, damaging property in the downtown area, and publicly calling out suspected sexual harassers, according to an email from one of the area school districts.

A few days later, on Oct. 20, 10 police officers responded to fights in a massive crowd of more than 100 students at Madison East. On Nov. 8, more than 15 police officers responded to what the media described as a melee in which five students were taken to the hospital. The next day, more than one-third of all students stayed home out of fear.

In all, Madison police were called to Madison East and its surrounding area 63 times during the first few months of the school year.

Madison East is no outlier. A simple Google search reveals similar headlines from around the country: Woman with gun arrested as IMPD breaks up large fight at George Washington High School in Indiana, Big brawl At Woodhaven High School results in minor injuries in Michigan, Police investigating after large fight in parking lot of West Mecklenburg High School in North Carolina, and Reynolds Middle School is shutting down in-person learning for 3 weeks to address student fights, misbehavior in Oregon. All these stories originated during the same week.

So what could be causing such a spike? Or perhaps more frighteningly, is this a new normal? Many factors may be contributing to this upward trend, but a few probable culprits require serious scrutiny.

Even before COVID, the trend was towards more violence in schools. The number of violent incidents on public school campuses increased a staggering 185 percent from 2016 to 2019, according to a recent study. But following months of lockdowns, closed schools, and virtual learning, this trend accelerated as kids returned to school.

For example, the National Association of School Resource Officers reported a tripling of gun-related incidents in schools between August and October 2021, compared to the same three-month period in 2019. One Florida principal, at a recent national school safety conference, summed up what many schools are experiencing: Some students, who had no history of issues, suddenly started aggressive behavior when our high school resumed last August.

Perhaps this should be no surprise. With students returning to school after a year of missed socialization, and the emotional damage it wrought, it seems only natural that student-on-student violence would increase.

In addition to COVID policies and their impact on socialization, schools are contributing to the problem by intentionally weakening discipline policies. Largely in the name of political correctness, school districts around the nation have been working to reduce racial disparities in suspensions.

Based on the notion that any difference in suspension rates among students of different races is inherently racist, suspension rates around the nation have declined significantly in recent years, with little evidence of improved student behavior. Previous research by our organization, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, has found that declining suspension rates are directly correlated to students feeling less safe in schools.

Exacerbating the decision to reduce suspensions, many school districts have also cut ties with local law enforcement by removing School Resource Officers (SROs). SROs are uniformed police officers specially trained, hired, and paid by police departments to work in public schools. Since the death of George Floyd, at least 33 public school districts (mostly in large cities), including the district covering Madison East, ended their relationships with local law enforcement and removed SROs.

Relatedly, anti-police curriculum is increasing. Nationwide, examples abound of teachers portraying police officers as racist murderers, displaying banners such as F-CK THE POLICE, and even teaching children as young as three that police are racist because a white-supremacy fairy whispers evil thoughts into their ears.

On the other hand, students are taught to praise lawless protesters and looters. One teacher was fired after he was caught on tape praising the violent and extreme political movement Antifa. Another public school teacher justified riots as an uprising and labeled rioters as freedom fighters.

Yet another teacher took to Facebook to express his desire for rioting and looting to come to his hometown, posting Burn down the entire city as well! and later I mean what I said. Loot and burn it down! Another teacher was fired for doing the opposite: criticizing looting and rioting in Chicago.

Tied up in this curricula is also an increasing call for students to embrace activism. For example, the BLM at School curriculum, which is taught in many public schools, promotes a national uprising and student-led protests.

Portland public schools even promoted multiple mock protests with children as young as five raising their black power fists, middle schoolers calling for defunding the police, and high school students demanding reparations while marching through the whitest part of the city. Teach For America, a nonprofit aimed at putting well-educated teachers in urban school districts, claims that youth-led activism, and not high-achieving students, is key to building a better world.

This is a dangerous cocktail: missed socialization due to lockdowns, falling suspension rates, sidelining and demonizing police, praising looters, and encouraging activism. When these policies are considered together, perhaps it is no surprise that our public schools are becoming more violent.

One silver lining is that each of these policies can be reversed. At bottom, this is a matter of school policy. Nothing inherently wrong with our kids. It is therefore time for education policymakers to abandon their current anti-authority and anti-discipline policies, and return schools to what they should be: safe learning environments for our children.

Dan Lennington is deputy counsel, and Dr. Will Flanders is research director, at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

See the original post:

What's Behind The Massive Spike In Violence Inside US Public Schools - The Federalist

Newly-released text messages show that while CNN reported on allegations of sexual harassment against Gov. Andrew Cuomo last March, his brother and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo was feeding information from sources to the governors top aide.

Chris texted top aide Melissa DeRosa, begging her to please let me help with the prep and criticizing her handling of the governors public relations crisis saying, we are making mistakes we cant afford.

Text messages show that Chris asked his sources and other journalists whether they knew if more accusers would be coming forward, and then relayed that information to his brothers team.

Rumor going around from politico 1-2 more ppl coming out tomorrow, DeRosa wrote, before asking the CNN primetime host, Can u check your sources?

On it, Chris replied, then writing back 40 minutes later, No one has heard that yet.

DeRosa specifically asked Chris about a report she believed The New Yorkers Ronan Farrow was planning to publish. Chris replied, If ronan has nothing better than [former Andrew Cuomo aide and accuser Lindsey] boylan thats a great sign.

After the Washington Post first reported last May that Chris was sitting in on strategy calls with his brothers team, the anchor apologized on-air to CNN viewers and to his CNN colleagues, saying he put them in a bad spot. The network issued a statement calling the anchors behavior inappropriate, but said they would not discipline him for the conflict of interest.

Chris addressed his role in his brothers scandal again in August after Andrew resigned, claiming he never influenced or attempted to control CNNs coverage.

I never misled anyone about the information I was delivering or not delivering on this program. I never attacked nor encouraged anyone to attack any woman who came forward. I never made calls to the press about my brothers situation. I never influenced or attempted to control CNNs coverage of my family. And as you know, back in May when I was told to no longer communicate with my brothers aides in any group meetings, I acknowledged it was a mistake, I apologized to my colleagues, I stopped, and I meant it.

The newly uncovered text messages show that Chris did in fact make calls to the press about his brothers situation.

Matt Dornic, CNNs head of strategic communications, did not immediately reply to The Federalists request for comment.

Andrew Cuomos COVID-19 nursing home policy killed thousands of elderly New Yorkers, but Chris frequently invited his brother on CNN for friendly coverage where not one tough question was asked. Chris also benefitted from thespecial COVID-19 testing privilegesthe Democrat governor afforded to his family and other well-connected figures in the state.

Read the original:

'Please Let Me Help': Texts Show CNN's Chris Cuomo Advised Brother While Network Covered Allegations - The Federalist

The Salvation Army issued a statement on Tuesday trying to walk back its racist claims in its Lets Talk About Racism guide after facing backlash.

Elements of the recently issued Lets Talk About Racism guide led some to believe we think they should apologize for the color of their skin, or that The Salvation Army may have abandoned its Biblical beliefs for another philosophy or ideology. That was never our intention, so the guide has been removed for appropriate review, the announcement states.

The Salvation Army, along with the International Social Justice Commission, published the now-hidden 67-page bookletwith the intent to foster conversations about racism and race so that we can join together to fight the evil of racism and create a more just and equitable society.

The guide uses critical race ideology buzzwords such as antiracism, white supremacy, colorblindness, and privilege to suggest that people should Lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed. The Salvation Armys resource not only claims that systemic racism is still a problem in the United States but demands that white people examine themselves to work towards a Church that models the Kingdom value of unified diversity.

Lets Talk About Racism also loosely outlines The Salvation Armys desire to continue pushing critical theory from the top down and reorient the organization to change personal (or corporate) worship life to ensure that I/we are pursuing racial equity and unity.

How would The Salvation Army at the corporate level be strengthened by taking an active stance for racial equity and unity? the guide asks.

The Salvation Armys statement overlooks the problems in its document and instead chides unnamed groups for attempting to mislabel our organization to serve their own agendas.

They have claimed that we believe our donors should apologize for their skin color, that The Salvation Army believes America is an inherently racist society, and that we have abandoned our Christian faith for one ideology or another. Those claims are simply false, and they distort the very goal of our work, The Salvation Army claimed.

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

Visit link:

Salvation Army Lies, Tries To Cover Up Critical Race Guide - The Federalist

With the release of his latest song Doin This prior to his Thanksgiving Day NFL halftime performance, country star Luke Combs poignantly communicates the power of fate amid his rise to extreme success. Per usual, Combs connects with his audience by focusing on the simple and pleasurable things in life unlike the many artists today shackled by materialism.

Combs unveiled the song in early November on the night of the Country Music Awards. The 31-year-old North Carolinian took home Entertainer of the Year, only further demonstrating his populist appeal to a fanbase hungry for less artifice in a country landscape influenced by superficial pop music. A music video for Doin This was also released shortly after, and it has more than 2.3 million views as of this writing.

Combs new song centers on what he would be doing if he were not an acclaimed country artist traveling the world. To that simple question, he tells it straight.

He enjoys making music so much that, regardless of his current situation, he says he would still be performing in dive bars, working a low-paying job, and hanging out with his hometown friends. Nostalgia permeates the song, as listeners connect with an artist reminiscing about uncomplicated times engaging in what he loves and always will.

Id be drivin my first car, an old worn-out DodgeTryin to make rent with a dead end job, just makin doWith tips in a jar, my guitar and an old barstool

Id have a Friday night crowd in the palm of my handCup of brown liquor, couple buddies in a bandSingin them same damn songs like I am nowId be feelin on fire on a hardwood stageBright lights like lightning runnin through my veinsAt the Grand Ole Opry or a show in some no-name town

Note the difference between how Combs describes his life compared to mainstream pop and hip-hop/rap artists. The singer-songwriter is comfortable with his humble beginnings and does not feel the need to endlessly describe to listeners his immense wealth and prestige. See this song by Drake, this by Lil Nas X, and this by Post Malone and The Weeknd for the opposite messaging.

An artist like Combs is refreshing to the mainstream music world, as he refuses to abide by a celebrity standard steeped in self-aggrandizing acknowledgment of fortune. In Doin This, Combs relies on the notion of fate to guide his listeners through a story of his life. The story is straightforward. It could be anyones.

Here was a working-class man singing in bars and with friends who made it big, and owes his dues to those who made him the man he ended up becoming. Here is an American who serves as a template for other hardworking and talented artists seeking to appeal to a wider audience.

His past life is characterized as equally meaningful as his present one, giving listeners the opportunity to consider the (absolutely true) reality that receiving fame and fortune is not the key to happiness. In fact, Combs directly references this in the songs bridge. He says, It Aint about the fame, It aint about the fortune, It aint about the name, It aint about the glory.

The notion of fate, as opposed to the postmodern and nihilistic notion of inexplicable randomness, is a recurring theme in Combs music. In Reasons, off his 2019 album What You See Is What You Get, the artist connects his complicated life to a higher power.

All things that have occurred in his existence good, bad, confusing are because its all part of a bigger plan that Ill never understand. In the bridge of Refrigerator Door, he says, As life flies by, it spills onto the side. Until its covered top to bottom with the best days of your life.

In this sense, Doin This piggybacks off other tracks and takes listeners back in time. Combs has previously said there was never a plan B for what he wanted to do with his life. The artist worked as a bouncer at a bar below his apartment in college before dropping out, and got his first gig after last call by dropping the mop he was using to clean up. He built a small fan base working at barbecue spots and in nearby towns.

None of this is to speculate that Combs is not incredibly satisfied with his current life. On the contrary, Doin This seems to indicate he recognizes he is blessed and knows he would be just as blessed should he not have millions in the bank. Its a good message for Gen Z folks who have been told that being famous is the end goal of life, which is bellowed by so-called influencers on Tik Tok, Instagram, and all the others.

Luke Combs has broken through the Nashville snap-track machine by staying true to himself. Should he continue to leave his arrogance at the door, the 31-year-old is only just beginning to make waves in an industry in need of authenticity and good values.

Read this article:

Luke Combs' 'Doin' This' Is What Listeners Need Out Of Mainstream Artists - The Federalist

Google-owned YouTube is threatening to ban any users who question the effectiveness of face masks.

Buried in the Big Tech platforms COVID-19 medical misinformation policy are clauses that allow YouTube to deplatform anyone who dares contest information about masks or contradict local health authorities or WHO.

Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects and Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19 both violate the Big Tech companys misinformation terms and conditions.Later in the policy, YouTube clarifies that Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels, Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage, and Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19 will also be punished.

Other censored terminology and phrases include Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 and Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases.

Any content that is deemed unacceptable under these terms could be punished with removal and a strike.

Repeat violators are subject to losing their channel or account. If you get 3 strikes within 90 days, your channel will be terminated. You can learn more about our strikes system here, the policy notes.

We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation, YouTube states.

In the policy, YouTube reserves the right to grant an exception to violating videos if that content includes additional context in the video, audio, title, or description.

This is not a free pass to promote misinformation, YouTube claims.

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

The rest is here:

YouTube Threatens To Ban Users Who Question Mask Effectiveness - The Federalist