Category Archives: Federalist

As the numbers of COVID-19 cases in Florida spike, Republicans are blaming immigrants and Black citizens to distract from their own malfeasance managing the pandemic. While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick are the latest politicians to stir up anti-minority sentiment for political purposes, they are not the first. In 1793, Federalists adopted a similar tactic and blamed a yellow fever outbreak on immigration. Seven years later, the Federalist Party was soundly defeated in national elections largely because of their anti-immigrant policies.

History suggests the same fate could await Republicans.

In 1793, a particularly deadly outbreak of yellow fever broke out in Philadelphia, the nations temporary capital. Five thousand people, or roughly 10% of the citys population, died during the outbreak. The city was so overwhelmed that officials placed coffins in nearby alleys so that they would be available when patients died.

READ MORE: Long before coronavirus, Philly ran a quarantine center for another deadly contagion

Yellow fever is caused when an infected mosquito bites a human. In the 18th century, the disease existed year-round in warm-weather regions, like parts of Africa, the Caribbean, and New Orleans. As a result, many residents developed immunity and mothers often passed down the required antibodies to their children. However, in Northern cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore that experience deep freezes, the disease emerged only sporadically and as a result often swept across the susceptible population, killing thousands.

Eighteenth-century Americans didnt understand the science behind the disease, but that didnt stop them from developing hypotheses. Two competing theories developed to explain the outbreak, with supporters often choosing sides based on their political identity. Federalists accused people arriving from the Caribbean and Africa of bringing the disease from foreign shores, whereas Democratic-Republicans blamed the unhealthy conditions in cities for spreading the pandemic.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, these arguments reflected the partisan views of each party. Federalist support congregated on the coast and in urban areas where merchants and banks flourished, whereas farmers in the western regions and recent immigrants from France, the Caribbean, and Ireland voted for Democratic-Republicans. Each side attacked the others voter base to explain the outbreak.

Both were right to some degree. Outbreaks were often triggered when ships carrying infected mosquitoes arrived from the Caribbean to trade in eastern ports. Once the mosquitoes arrived, they happily bred and multiplied in the standing water that lingered on unpaved streets without sewers, and in the filthy water around the crumbling wharves in the Philadelphia port.

While Federalists concerns about the physical import of disease in the 1700s at least had some factual basis, the same cant be said for DeSantis and Patrick. Florida doesnt share a border with Mexico, rendering DeSantis claims entirely without merit. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine, dismissed DeSantis argument: Given the extensive transmission already in the U.S., the immigration contribution is akin to pouring a bucket of water into a swimming pool. In the Texas case, Patrick has blamed the recent outbreak on unvaccinated Black Americans. The facts resoundingly disprove Patricks claim, as unvaccinated white Texans outnumber unvaccinated Black Texans 3-1.

But the Federalists too spread xenophobia, and actively pursued policies and legislation that undermined immigrants rights. In 1798, Federalists in Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which increased the number of years of residence required for citizenship from five to 14 years, permitted the president to detain and export alien residents of enemy countries, and made it a crime to print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing about the federal government.

Federalists defended these bills as necessary to prevent political violence and anarchy that they feared would be sparked by lies printed in partisan newspapers. In reality, the bills made it harder for immigrants to become citizens, and therefore harder for immigrants to vote. The Sedition Acts targeted the most outspoken and critical newspaper editors, many of whom were also immigrants.

The backlash against the bills was immediate and sustained until the election in the fall of 1800. Both Democratic-Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, beat Federalist John Adams in the presidential election. Democratic-Republicans also took control of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time. The losses were so significant that the Federalist Party would never again control the presidency or either house of Congress.

READ MORE: Gov. Wolf isnt pulling harmful COVID-19 stunts like Floridas Ron DeSantis. But hes also not doing enough. | Editorial

DeSantis and Patrick are making the same calculations as the Federalists in 1798. They know that nonwhite voters are more likely to support Democrats, and they are hoping to avert attention from their own failures by fear-mongering and ginning up racist sentiment. Its a gamble. Both Florida and Texas have growing minority populations with ties to the Black and immigrant communities. Hopefully voters in these states will reject the hateful rhetoric, just as voters did in 1800.

Lindsay M. Chervinsky, Ph.D., is a presidential historian and senior fellow at the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. She is also the author of The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution. @lmchervinsky.

Go here to see the original:

Todays Republicans can learn from how their brethren handled yellow fever | Opinion - The Philadelphia Inquirer

The show's new host departed the day after he taped the first five episodes of 'Jeopardy's' 38th season, leading to what will likely stand as its most awkward week ever.

On Monday, Jeopardy! began its 38th season in syndication with even more changes than when it started its 37th season last September but for entirely different reasons. Last year, lockdowns halted production of Jeopardy! and other TV shows in spring 2020 and forced new safety precautions, a spacing out of contestant lecterns and an audience-free soundstage among the most significant.

This year, by contrast, the turmoil at Jeopardy! comes from within rather than from without. Sony Pictures Entertainment named executive producer Mike Richards the shows host on August 11. He lasted but a week in that permanent role, giving up hosting duties on August 19, only to get fired from Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune entirely on August 31.

Sony made the right call in terminating Richards, who failed to inform company executives about boorish comments he had made on several podcasts years ago, even after details of several sexual discrimination lawsuits recently re-emerged. But his departure as host came one day after he taped the first five episodes of Jeopardys 38th season, leading to what will likely stand as Jeopardys most awkward week of episodes ever.

Because Jeopardy! tapes serially i.e., every show features a returning champion Sony cannot as a practical matter not air the Richards episodes. It also cant scrap the shows and re-tape with a different host, as a different contestant might win.

As a result, Sony remained stuck with airing this weeks episodes once. But suffice it to say these episodes likely will never air again, given that they serve as a reminder of how badly the company botched the process of selecting a host to succeed Alex Trebek.

Even though Sony has to air the episodes themselves, that doesnt mean it has to highlight Richardss role in them. Multiple videos released by Sony promoting this weeks episodes say not a word about Richards, and in one case show the Jeopardy! soundstage with contestants behind their lecterns, but no one at the hosts position.

One contestant, who will appear on Fridays episode, tweeted last week that, while he and his fellow contestants took two promotional photos a headshot and a picture with Richards Jeopardy! only sent him the former and not the latter. The omission makes sense on multiple levels; not only does Sony want to sever any reminder of Richardss association with the show, but his termination meant he could not autograph photos with contestants, as Trebek did.

That said, the Jeopardy! producers did not edit the opening segment of Mondays show. Whereas announcer Johnny Gilbert introduced last seasons guest hosts as such, he gave Richards the windup And now, here is the host of Jeopardy! he had heretofore given Trebek alone.

As to Trebek, his name made an appearance during the opening, as his wife and children helped dedicate Stage 10 on the Sony Pictures Studio lot in his honor. The nonagenarian Gilbert, who recorded most of his audio segments from a home studio last season for health and safety reasons, also made a brief on-camera appearance from his usual post in the studio.

But two individuals did not make an appearance. Ken Jennings and Buzzy Cohen, two former Jeopardy! champions who each guest-hosted episodes last season, attended the Trebek dedication ceremony but were reportedly kept off the soundstage during the days taping because Richards reportedly felt unnerved by their presence.

Amidst the awkwardness of this Jeopardy! drama, champion Matt Amodio has become almost an afterthought. On Monday, he won his 19th consecutive episode, spanning the hosting stints of Robin Roberts, LeVar Burton, David Faber, Joe Buck, and now Richards. His more than $600,000 in winnings ranks third-best ever, behind only Jennings and James Holzhauer, yet most stories about the program over the past month have focused on the failed host search.

In rolling out the shows 38th season, Jeopardy! has tried to emphasize its continuity and tradition with the hashtag #TheGameContinues. But the way Sony mangled its search for a new host badly damaged the shows goodwill in the press, with the public, and with regular viewers and alumni (including yours truly).

However, just prior to Richardss removal as executive producer, Sony sources said that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the ratings for Jeopardy! are holding steady, an indication that while the drama behind the scenes is big among industry insiders and social media, the audience will keep watching the show.

In other words, the same group that offered a business-school case study in poor succession planning over the past few months said they essentially take the shows audience for granted. As for Jeopardy!, yes, the game continues for now. But if the corporate rot that caused the Richards debacle persists, the popular quiz show may find itself pardon the pun in jeopardy.

Read more:

'Jeopardy's' Weirdest Week Ever Begins. Will Audiences Stay For It? - The Federalist

By Allen C. Guelzo, Ph. D., Gettysburg CollegeThe Federalists had to accept certain conditions when Virginia assembly passed the ratification. (Image: Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Gwillhickers/Public domain)The Vitriolic Attacks of the Anti-Federalists

The long prelude to the Virginia ratifying convention was a gift to Virginias anti-FederalistsRichard Henry Lee, George Mason, and of course, Patrick Henry. Richard Henry Lee took the lead as a writer, publishing a 64-page pamphlet of extracts from the Constitution along with vitriolic attacks on them; Edmund Randolph published another. Patrick Henry shrewdly frightened those Virginians who had unpaid pre-war debts to British merchants or who had occupied confiscated Tory properties, with the specter of being dragged into faraway federal courts for a shaking down. No speech of Henrys in the assembly, no matter what the topic, ended without some swipe at the Constitution.

Elections to the ratifying convention became fiercely competitive, and in March, Madison, who had been urged by George Washington to stand for election to the convention, had to break off his collaboration with Alexander Hamilton in producing The Federalist in New York. He had to come back to Virginia to stave off a challenge from an anti-Federalist convert, Thomas Barbour, in Orange County. Madison won easily, 202 votes to 56.

This is a transcript from the video series Americas Founding Fathers. Watch it now, on Wondrium.

The real test, however, would come in the ratifying convention itself, which assembled on June 2, 1788, in Richmond. The convention was gaveled to order by Edmund Pendleton after George Wythe, the greatest of Virginias lawyers and judges and on a motion from George Mason, they agreed to begin a full discussion, clause by clause.

But the convention was waiting for Patrick Henry, and on June 4, he announced solemnly: I conceive the republic to be in extreme dangera proposal to change our governmenta proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states.

Who authorized them to speak the language of We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics andthe soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government.

George Mason was quick to follow Henrys line of attack. Mason asked whether a national government could supervise a nation as big as the United States without becoming tyrannical by necessity. Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, et cetera, where the people retained their liberty?

Learn more about William Pattersons dissent.

Speaking briefly at the end of the June 4 session, Madison paved the way for Henry Leethe famed Light-Horse Harryto go on the attack. Lee said the expression, We the People, had not been foisted on the Constitutional convention by cunning schemers. In fact, what could be more proper than to begin a constitution by appealing to the people whose sovereignty it embodied?

But it would fall to Madison on June 6 to deliver a resolute dissection of Henrys alarm. Was Patrick Henry fearful for a loss of liberty? Upon a review of history, Madison coolly replied, he would have found that the loss of liberty very often resulted from factions and divisionsfrom local considerations, which eternally lead to quarrelshe would have found internaldissensions to have more frequently demolished civil liberty than consolidated government.

Madison said that the new Constitution had createda middle ground between a disconnected heap of states and a singleconcentrated government. Madison said that the government was not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The peoplebut not the people as composing one great bodybut the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.

Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the 13 states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposed government was very material and would be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mere confederacy.

Learn more about the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

For nine days, the arguments swayed back and forth, including a powerful speech by Patrick Henry on June 24. On June 25, after three weeks of wrangling, the question was called for, and on a roll call vote demanded by George Mason ratification won 89 to 79.

But the Federalists had not won their victory without conditions. The ratifying resolutions required that any imperfections in the Constitution be remedied by amendments which would guarantee that no right of any religious denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the president, or any department or officer of the United States. Among other essential rights, liberty of conscience and of the press could not be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

Madison and his fellow Federalists had obtained themost important of the state ratifications and only at the price of pledging themselves to add a bill of rights. The anti-Federalists of New York narrowly followed suit on July 26 after they got the news of Virginias ratification. The Constitution had arrived at last.

On June 25, the question was called for, and on a roll call vote demanded by George Mason ratification won 89 to 79.

James Madison said that it would be a government established by the 13 states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large.

Elections to the ratifying convention became fiercely competitive, and James Madison had to come back to Virginia to stave off a challenge from an anti-Federalist convert, Thomas Barbour, in Orange County.

More here:

The Anti-Federalists and the Virginia Ratifying Convention - The Great Courses Daily News

The long-awaited return of Bravos Real Housewives of Salt Lake City underscores the creeping true-crimeification of the networks popular reality fare. Like this fan-favorite season of the Beverly Hills housewives, RHOSLC promises to document in painful detail the legal drama surrounding one of its stars. Its great television.

The trend also emphasizes the salience of a major question dogging our pop culture: What is it with women and true crime?

One of the biggest problems with Only Murders in the Building is that two of its three main characters are men. In a Spotify article probing why women are so obsessed with True Crime, social psychologist Amanda Vicary said, My research suggests that women are drawn to true crime because of the information they can learn from it, even if they arent aware that that may be the reason they are listening! A Mother Jones article last year noted, The podcast Wine and Crime reports that women make up 85 percent of its audience, which lines up with a 2018 study that found that 73 percent of true crime podcast listeners are women.

The conflicts on Bravo are often centered around mysteries: Does Brooks actually have cancer? Did Lisa plant the story? What did Teresa know? Is Aviva really asthmatic? But Jen Shah, Mary Cosby, and Erika Girardi find themselves in the middle of allegations they committed serious crimes, allegations that played out as cameras were rolling. (Erika claims, often convincingly, to have had no knowledge of her husbands alleged financial crimes.)

In the case of Shah, RHOSLCs second season premiere starts out with a flash-forward to the day of her arrest, promising a season thick with drama and intrigue. The episode then allows Shah to display her riches, seemingly unaware or unconcerned with the optics and legal implications. For viewers, most of whom are likely female, the unsolved mysteries gives each episode an added layer of immediacy and a sense of higher stakes as they scan cast members behavior for clues and evidence.

Shah, according to the indictment against her and her assistant, allegedly generated and sold lead lists of innocent individuals for other members of their scheme to repeatedly scam. None of her aggressively luxurious lifestyle adds up, something the producers subtly emphasize throughout the premiere episode. Even subtly, shes an incredible character.

The allegations against Cosby, stemming from former members of the church she oversees, are equally if not more compelling. All the rumors are that Mary is a cult leader, says one of the women.

I always think of the Housewives as docuseries as much as reality series (the good franchises, at least). Theyre incredible commentaries on American decadence, and incredibly funny too. True crime, then, makes for a seamless genre merger.

It should also be a wake-up call to the network and its super fans that reality television is about antiheroes. Viewers dont need them to be protagonists and social justice activists; they need them to be authentic and interesting and thats just fine. By bringing Shah and Cosby back to the series, Bravo seems to concede this at least when the crime isnt political incorrectness. Its also always worth reiterating that its fine for TV stars to be bad people so long as their platforms serve as commentaries on their immorality, which is exactly what Bravo does.

This season of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is riveting wherever you stand on Girardis innocence. With two accused criminals, one currently battling charges, RHOSLC is off to an enormously promising start. Were all wondering exactly how guilty Shah is, but another question to ponder is why are women currently so hooked on true crime? Bravo is bringing us closer to an answer.

See the rest here:

'Real Housewives Of Salt Lake City' Propels Bravo's True Crime Trend - The Federalist

President Joe Bidens Justice Department is suing the state of Texas over its newest pro-life law, which prohibits killing babies in utero if they have a detectable heartbeat.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the lawsuit on Thursday and asked an Austin district court to block Texas officers, employees and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under the law from implementing it.

The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Garland said on Thursday.

The lawsuit argues that the law, which allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion, is in open defiance of the Constitution and make[s] it too risky for an abortion clinic to operate in the state, thereby preventing women throughout Texas from exercising their constitutional rights, while simultaneously thwarting judicial review.

This kind of scheme, to nullify the Constitution of the United States, is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear, Garland said.

The White House previously expressed discontent with the law and promised to take action against the Lone Star State.

In a 5-4 decision issued last week, the Supreme Court declined to block the lawdespite protests from Planned Parenthood, other abortion activists, and even journalists.

Jordan Davidson 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 post:

Biden's Justice Department Is Suing Texas Over Pro-Life Law - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his article Corporate Media Once Again Target Ron DeSantis While Democrats Ruin Everything.

Any one of them on their own, a writer at the New York Times or a host on MSNBC, is not going to do too much damage but when you have them as a chorus creating a narrative and its everywhere, Scarry said, unless you happen to be watching Fox or listening to conservative radio or reading The Federalist, you are going to otherwise just be exposed to this nonstop drumbeat of COVID and death and infections and all that stuff.

There are some people who really do just enjoy the pandemic. They love the pandemic and they want you to love it too, he added. The medias malfeasance and dedication to push an agenda, especially about COVID-19, Scarry said, should push Americans to seek out alternative news sources.

The only way I think for people to realize that thats happening to them, theyre not getting the truth and they are more and more going to have to seek out alternative sources of information, he noted. They are not going to get it from the big entertainment corporate media. They just are not going to get it there.

Original post:

How The Corporate Media Is Indoctrinating Americans With Fear And Lies - The Federalist

(Watch the video for the monologue and an interview with the Conservative Partnership Institutes Rachel Bovard on whats wrong in Washington and how to fix it.)

Washington Republicans are excited for the 2022 elections, and they have reason to be theyre going to do well. Theyre heavy favorites to take back the House of Representatives; and despite a very bad Senate map, its a coin flip theyll retake that too.

None of this is too shocking: First-term presidents usually face a backlash, and often its a bloodbath.

President Barack Obama crushed Sen. John McCain, then lost 63 House seats two years later; President Donald Trump lost 42 seats in 2018; President Bill Clinton lost 54. In fact, the only first-term president to not lose House seats in the midterms in the past 55 years was President George W. Bush, in the post-9/11 2002 midterms.

This is the nature of politics: A new man is swept in and carries fellow party members with him, then two years later enthusiasm has waned, the presidents promises have turned into a more frustrating reality, and opposition voters are angry and fired up. So what happens? They punish the party in power.

All of that figures to be even worse for President Joe Biden. Nobody is passionate about Biden himself, and in 2022 Democrats wont be turning out to vote against Trump, so even if Biden were doing a bang-up job hed still be in for what his old boss called a shellacking.

But Biden is not doing a great job hes doing terribly. He ran on solving COVID, but COVID is, of course, still here. Even worse, so are the absurd restrictions COVID has placed on our lives: Our children are still masked, flying is still miserable, big businesses are being coerced into injecting their employees with a leaky vaccine, and small businesses are still being executed at the decree of state and local health officials.

Biden ran on bringing humanitarian values to the border. Instead, he has virtually abolished the border. By the end of the year, 2 million people may have arrived there, and hundreds of thousands more will have crossed undetected or simply arrived by flying here and then overstaying a visa.

Many of those arrivals have already disappeared into the U.S. interior, and some of them have been picked up by sex and labor traffickers. It turns out when you stop enforcing laws and backing the men and women on the line, crime takes over and people suffer.

Inflation is setting in because of course it is: You cant go out and complain about setting $2 trillion on fire over 20 years in Afghanistan, then try to more than double it in one go right here at home.

Crime is rampant, and why wouldnt it be? Just like on the border, stopping crime doesnt require any complicated dissertations on root causes its been with us forever, and its always been stopped by arresting and punishing the bad guys. Thats it. So naturally, thats the one tactic its now unacceptable to deploy.

Its all gotten so bad even corporate media are beginning to wonder if the semiconscious man theyve spent nearly two years now essentially holding upright might not be all there. Who would have guessed?

And hey: If the old man decides to step down today, his replacement is Vice President Kamala Harris, who is somehow even less popular. So all in all, Washington Republicans have reason to be happy.

But heres the bad news: Conservatives dont have reason to be happy or at least we have just as much reason to be happy as we do for basically any Republican congressional majority.

Why? To explain, lets take a step back first and look at the budget fights raging right now: Trillions of dollars in spending on what? From Cradle to Grave, The New York Times headline blared, Democrats Move to Expand Social Safety Net.

The $3.5 trillion social policy bill that lawmakers begin drafting this week, it reads, would touch virtually every American, at every point in life, from conception to old age.

Its amazing: The Times is so excited theyre actually admitting that unborn children are alive.

True, theres no guarantee Democrats will get everything they want in this fight, although if they dont it will be because of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, not Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But thats not the point: The point is theyre choosing to pick this battle in the first place, and damn the torpedoes. They know its dangerous and theyre doing it anyway. Why? Therein lies conservatives problem.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is 81 years old. Shes worth tens of millions of dollars at least. She owns a vineyard. She has a refrigerator filled with expensive ice cream. And every single day she comes to work with the full intention of changing this country.

What did she say about the Democratic budget? That, This legislation will be the biggest, and perhaps the most controversial, initiative that any of us have undertaken in our official lives.And then she did it.

You see that in a lot of places. Do you think the public is happy that the military is giving out free transgender operations and having generals learn about white rage? Do they like their children being fed critical race theory? Do they like COVID relief being handed out based on skin color rather than need?

Of course not, but Democrats know that if they can get those policies implemented now, many of them will remain forever. Theyll lose Democrats in the process, but so be it there will be more Democrats in the future. Its impossible to watch politics professionally for over a decade, through some of its liveliest battles in a long time, and not come to the understanding that Democrats in general do politics differently.

Modern liberal politicians often come to Washington as activists they want to change the world. Republicans, on the other hand, most often come to Washington because its prestigious. They want a feather in the cap of their successful career in business or law.

Heres how this dynamic plays out: When Democrats are legislating on something major, they look around the field and say to themselves, Yeah, were going to take some casualties on this one, but were going to change America. And then they blast right through it. Pelosi is going to lose members for this overhaul of our country and she knows it shes just decided that given the trouble theyre already heading into, its worth it.

Shes thrown away a House majority before, back in 2010. But guess what? Before she did, she changed the entire country with Obamacare. That was her exit bomb; that was the sacrifice she made. And now shes back, Obamacare is still the law (because of the Republicans and the legacies), and the temptation is going to return to laughing at her when she loses again in 2022.

But if she gets this budget through, well then who cares. Her legacy will be remaking the role of government and its interactions with an increasingly dependent class of citizens in the most major way since President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Great Society 60 years ago.

Now, what do Republicans do when theyre in charge? And not just having the House when they get to pass whatever they want without consequence but when it matters.

When it matters, Republicans look around and say, Oh no we cant do that, wed lose a man. The Democrats would take seats. They are virtually a majority for the sake of being a majority. They just want to polish it up, put it on the shelf, and look at it. Border? Abortion? Woof, those are tough fights, well lose members. Its an election year, after all, or if it isnt, it will be soon.

To put it simply, Republicans approach politics like America fights wars: They dont want to lose a single man. Democrats, on the other hand? They look at politics like the Russians looked at Stalingrad: The congressman in front votes now; when they fall the next man gets elected and he will vote too.

So you see a repeating pattern to American politics: There isnt a true back-and-forth. Instead, Democrats change the country a lot while theyre in power. Then Republicans hold power and push the pause button. Theres no rollback that a new executive order cant undo.

Maybe they cut taxes; bring back the Mexico City policy; junk a regulation that Democrats created but didnt manage to implement; but thats about it. When was the last time Republicans passed a huge law one that changed America forever the way Democrats do every time they hold serve in American politics? You dont see it.

This is how you use politics to remake the country. This is why it always feels like conservatives are fighting a rearguard action because they are.

The problem is multiple-fold in Washington, where calcified think tanks lack both the faculties and vision needed to defeat an enemy theyve been losing to for so long, and where politicians are either lazy, risk-averse, easily led by corporate interests, or a combination of all three.

Hopefully this is changing. The intelligentsia of the city is disrupted, with new and interesting people and organizations rising to the occasion. At the same time, there are also more active, populist, hard-hitting Republicans coming to the fore Republicans who want real change, not just the promise of one.

Its a culture shift and its long needed, but like anything so entrenched as culture, change takes time time that we dont really have.

See original here:

Why Democrats Are Always Winning, Even When They Lose - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Digital Dunkirks Alex Plitsas joins Federalist Senior Editor Chris Bedford to discuss how hes helping American citizens and other at-risk Afghans escape the grasp of the Taliban.

I look at these efforts kind of like what happened in World War II where people were hiding Jews in the attic or other places, where these were civilians who were not in the military but they had an opportunity to help and provide safe passage and harbor. And if you have the opportunity to do it, you do, Plitsas said.

Rescuing those stranded and in need of help, Plitsas said, is not only an honor but a duty.

We have warrior ethos in the army, and its part of the oath when you take and you say it: I will never accept defeat, I will never quit, Ill never leave a fallen comrade, Plitsas said. We dont leave anybody behind. Thats been the U.S. mantra forever, and we cant hold that line as a value of the United States if we dont do that. And there are Americans left behind. We owe it to them to get them out as well.

Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky also weighs in on the conversation and reflects on Americans reactions to the disaster in Afghanistan.

Learn more about Digital Dunkirk here.

Read the rest here:

Behind The Incredible Rescue Efforts Of 'Digital Dunkirk' - The Federalist

The National Archives Records Administration placed a harmful content warning on the Constitution, labeling the governing document of the United States as harmful or difficult to view. The warning applies to all documents across the Archives cataloged website, including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

NARAs records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records, the administration said in a statement. As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.

The NARA, which is responsible for preserving and protecting documentation of American heritage, noted that so-called harmful historical documents could reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes; be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more, and include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more.

Along with committing to diversity and equity, the NARA said it would [work] in conjunction with diverse communities, [and] seek to balance the preservation of this history with sensitivity to how these materials are presented to and perceived by users.

This isnt the first time the National Archives has catered to a leftist view of history. In June, the National Archives racism task force claimed that the Archives rotunda, which houses founding documents, is an example of structural racism. The task force also pushed to include trigger warnings around displays of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which are all in the rotunda.

The warning is a blanket statement atop all documents in the archived catalogs that links to a Statement on Potentially Harmful Content.

As news of the websites warning circulated on Twitter, the NARA issued a standard response to those concerned by the harmful label on the Constitution.

This alert is not connected to any specific records, but appears at the top of the page while you are using the online Catalog. To learn more about why the alert about harmful language appears in our Catalog, please go to NARAs Statement on Potentially Harmful Content, the tweet said.

Continue reading here:

National Archives Slaps 'Harmful Content' Warning On Constitution - The Federalist

A pair of massive wildfires within 150 miles of each other are terrorizing thousands in northern California two years after Gov. Gavin Newsom cut resources for fire prevention efforts.

The Caldor Fire, which burned down dozens of cabins at Lake Tahoe, threatens nearly 40,000 people living in its five-mile radius. The Dixie Fire further north, billed as the largest in modern California history, poses risk to another 15,000 as of this writing.

Together, the fires that are each less than 60 percent contained have burned upwards of 2,300 structures and nearly 1.2 million acres, according to a tracker by The New York Times. Another four infernos are currently blazing through northern California with more on the way sending smoke across the western United States.

We are seeing generational destruction of forests because of what these fires are doing, Californias Chief of Forestry and Fire Protection Thom Porter said last month. This is going to take a long time to come back from. Indeed, nearly half of Lassen Volcanic National Park has been burned by the Dixie Fire.

Yet the crisis was just as predictable as it was preventable. While Democrats and their allies in legacy media knee-jerk blame climate change, the true culprit is negligent land management.

More than 100 years of fire suppression by the U.S. Forest Service has culminated in the build-up of wood fuel powering the megafires seen today. While high-intensity blazes primarily grow on federally mismanaged lands, state agencies still play critical roles in fire prevention efforts with Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct cooperative forest management. Nearly half the state is owned by the federal government.

Newsom, who faces a recall election Tuesday, dramatically cut Californias budget for wildfire prevention and resource management from $355 million in 2019 to $203 million, a more than 40 percent decrease on the heels of some of the worst seasons on record since modern-day tracking began in 1983.

Lawrence McQuillan, a senior fellow at the Oakland-based libertarian think tank Independent Institute, called the lack of resources devoted to prevention efforts deliberate in an effort for Democrats to prove their theories on climate change are correct.

Climate change isnt necessary nor sufficient for this problem to occur. What is necessary and sufficient for what were seeing in California is the lack of proper land management and fuel reduction, McQuillan told The Federalist.

Californias forests are now dramatically overgrown, standing as colossal tinder boxes waiting to go up in flames the moment ignition strikes, whether it be from a lightning strike or a decrepit power line, as happened with the Camp Fire in 2018 that devastated the town of Paradise. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the company that pled guilty 84 counts of manslaughter over the blaze its powerlines ignited, is also suspected in causing the Dixie Fire, but has cut backroom deals with the governors office to avoid full liability payments.

Overgrown forests are also susceptible to beetle infestations that kill the trees and leave the dead wood as excess fire fuel. According to the Record Redding Searchlight, more than 163 million trees were killed in California between 2010 to 2019 primarily by bark beetles, raising the risk for mega-wildfires.

Without forest thinning, prescribed burns to trim the landscape, and salvage logging of trees knocked down, all barred by successful activism from radical environmentalists opposed to any human activity in wild spaces, Californias forests will continue to wreak havoc as they have always done pre-European arrival.

According to ProPublica, between 4 and 12 million acres burned naturally in prehistoric California every year. Between 1989 and 1998, however, state bureaucrats only burned an average of 30,000 acres a year. That number fell to 13,000 acres between 1999 and 2017. More than 4 million acres still burned across the state unmanaged. The difference between the fires of pre-historic California and today is their intensity and catastrophic nature.

Ultimately, youre going to have to remove excess fuels from forest land in California, or Mother Nature will do it for you. Theres only two options here, McQuillan said. If humans do this work, we can do it without seeing these megafires sweep California and cause so much property damage and loss of life not to mention the toxic wildfire smoke released into the atmosphere.

Trump administration Environmental Protection Agency transition team member and founder of JunkScience Steve Milloy outlined how the pollution caused by Californias wildfires has more than offset the progress made by its expensive cap-and-trade emissions program.

Since 2012, Californias cap-and-trade system has reduced emissions by 180 million tons extrapolating through 2021 (at the 2019 level), Milloy wrote last month. But since 2012, approximately 12.35 million acres have burned. At 23 tons per acre, that makes 280 million tons of emissions.

If you blame the government for not managing forests, Milloy told The Federalist this week, then perhaps the greatest emitter in California is the government.

So how responsible is Newsom in todays wildfire crisis? After cutting the states prevention resources by nearly half in the face of an entirely predictable disaster, the governor misled the public about its readiness to confront the seasons ahead.

According to an investigative report published by CapRadio in June, Newsom overestimated the number of acres treated with prevention efforts, including fuel breaks and prescribed burns by 690 percent, when he repeatedly touted 35 priority projects by executive action at the start of his first term.

Newsom has claimed that 35 priority projects carried out as a result of his executive order resulted in fire prevention work on 90,000 acres, the paper wrote. But the states own data show the actual number is 11,399.

When he claimed mission accomplished in a 2020 press release touting completion of his 90,000-acre goal over 35 projects, he was way off.Meanwhile, the governors unfinished target of 90,000 acres treated remains far, far below what is necessary for effective prevention efforts to keep fires from developing into high-intensity infernos.

We need to be doing a million acres a year, for a long time, Stanford Professor Michaele Wara explained to the paper. Thats the scale where you start to achieve strategic goals like fewer structures lost.

In other words, Newsom needed to up the goal and meet it, not oversee aggressive divestment.

Go here to read the rest:

How Much Is Gavin Newsom To Blame For California's Wildfires? - The Federalist