Category Archives: Federalist

Ryan Jung took a quick glance at the folded sheet of paper on which was written his winning vote total in Tuesday nights presidential election at American Legion Boys Nation, then stuck it back in his pocket.

So what did he think of that 59-41 tally?

I think its just testament to the fact that some of us are able to look past our differences and some of us are just really diverse in our political beliefs. I mean, I come from California, quite a solidly blue state, and my best friend is from Alabama. I just love that having that genuine personality transcends your political beliefs, Jung said. Even though we may think differently on some political issues that are just real hot-button issues that we think divides our nation, we can look past it with this genuineness and this maturity, and I think regardless of whatever that vote count was, thats the biggest thing I take away this week.

Jung, the Nationalist Party candidate from California, defeated Federalist Dimitrios Owen of Virginia to be elected president of the 75th session of Boys Nation.

For me, its just as personal and important to represent myself as a member of the (Asian American Pacific Islander) community as much as it is an opportunity to learn and challenge myself, Jung said of his decision to run for president. I thought that I wouldnt be able to go to sleep at night at the end of the week if I just didnt go for high office and I didnt really put in 110 percent effort.

One of Jungs favorite books is Strength to Love by Martin Luther King Jr., a book whose lessons Jung hopes to use to unite the senators of Boys Nation.

I think hes able to unite disparate beliefs, disparate political parties, disparate racial groups, Jung said of Kings writing. And I hope that in the same vein I can unite our Federalists and Nationalists in that same sense. And its being able to have a degree of grace with one another. Having the strength to love one another like neighbors even though at times we seem like enemies. I still think its important to have that kind of grace, to understand that we are all common Americans, looking past our differences and keeping that in heart.

Also elected Tuesday night was vice president Cameron Cummings, an Alabama Boys Stater selected to represent Michigan at Boys Nation. Because of pandemic restrictions, 15 Boys State programs canceled or delayed their sessions this summer so 30 senators from other states were randomly selected to represent those programs.

Ironically enough, Cummings, a Federalist, defeated fellow Alabamian and Michigan senator and Boys Nation roommate Aiden Sanders, a Nationalist, for the vice presidency.

We were both really happy when each other won, Cummings said. When someone told me that Aiden won (the nomination), I was really surprised not the fact that I didnt have faith in him, but two people from the same state, sitting right beside each other in the same room, both got the vice presidential nomination, just amazing.

While Cummings concedes he would have loved to represent Alabama at Boys Nation, being here is an honor in itself; I would never take that for granted, he said.

I had to do a little research on issues in (Michigan) just in case I need to bring up in the senate chamber, so I could be well-versed in how they work and operate there, he added. Im still proud to say Im representing Michigan.

Jung and Cummings were officially sworn in Wednesday morning.

Follow the happenings at American Legion Boys Nation at legion.org/boysnation and on YouTube at americanlegionHQ, and on social media on Twitter (@ALBoysNation) and Instagram (@theamericanlegion) with the hashtag #BoysNation75.

More:

Election night at Boys Nation 75 | The American Legion - The American Legion

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Editors note: This is one in a series examining the Constitution and Federalist Papers in todays America. Click HERE to read the series.

Of late it seems our nation is neither one nor indivisible. The divide between red and blue America is palpable, extreme and so rancorous it sometimes spills into violence. Bipartisanship is largely defunct and our nations legislative branch essentially frozen.

Yet one ray of sunshine brightens the horizon: We are living in the golden age of federalism.

Our system of dual sovereignty was at once a genius inspiration of our Constitutions framers and a necessary expedient for its enactment. The idea, enshrined in the 10th Amendment, is that certain limited powers were delegated to the national government, with the remaining valid powers retained by the states. Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 51 that reserving certain powers in the states would provide a double security, in addition to separation of powers, to constrain abuses of national power.

Despite the relentless flow of power to our nations capital, states continue to dominate wide swaths of governance, from education to criminal law, personal injury, domestic relations, and most importantly, the police power (the power to regulate for public health and safety). In domains that have not been taken over by the national government, states are free to call their own shots to be, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, laboratories of democracy so long as they do not violate the Constitution.

For most of Americas history, federalism was a partisan issue: Whichever party dominated Washington squelched federalism. One decision from the New Deal Supreme Court dismissed the 10th Amendment as a truism, aspirationally majestic but devoid of content.

But today, both parties embrace federalism. Even when one party or the other seeks to increase the national governments power, it simultaneously moves the policy ball forward in states it controls.

In this regard, federalism serves a vitally important function: as a release valve for pent-up dissent. Did liberals disdain President Trumps immigration policies? How about creating welcoming sanctuary cities? Conservatives who fear President Bidens gun-control policies have appropriated the idea, creating sanctuary cities for gun rights.

Are these divergent policies meaningful, or even constitutional? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But they reflect our doctrinal preference for decentralized authority. Federalism secures the freedom of the individual, the Supreme Court declared in a unanimous 2011 opinion. It allows states to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.

We have never experienced so much federalism. We are emerging from COVID-19 federalism, in which some states exercised tight control, while others reopened more quickly. We have abortion federalism, in which some states permit abortion until nearly birth while others proscribe it after a fetal heartbeat. We have capital punishment federalism, educational federalism, right-to-work federalism. The list is endless.

We also have what I call civil disobedience federalism, where states pursue their own path contrary to federal law. For instance, marijuana is legalized in some states, illegal in others. So far, the federal government under both parties has tolerated the divergence and may even legalize it.

That example illustrates another attribute of federalism: Where the national government is deadlocked, we can test-drive different approaches in the states. My favorite example is a policy my former colleagues at the Goldwater Institute and I devised called right to try. For decades, advocates in Washington toiled without success to speed up the approval process at the Food and Drug Administration for potentially lifesaving drugs. Our audacious idea was to establish in state law the right for terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs.

We expected the FDA to challenge the law to protect its regulatory hegemony. Instead, as the idea swept dozens of states, both red and blue, the FDA began streamlining its processes. Eventually the law was passed with bipartisan majorities in Congress just in time to aid the rapid approval of COVID-19 vaccines.

Free-rein federalism is properly checked by constitutional constraints. But both sides of the ideological divide should applaud the willingness and the ability of states to pass laws that reflect their citizens values and aspirations. That means resisting efforts to nationalize decision-making on matters traditionally entrusted to the states. Indeed, where such efforts go too far, they also may transgress constitutional boundaries.

We need the release valve. Certainly, the red-blue divide exists not just among but within states. But it is much easier to affect, and change, politics at the state level than the national level. If you dont like what your state does, you can always find more hospitable climes.

We all have a direct stake in protecting federalism, even if we dont always like what it produces. The one-size-fits-all alternative will often look far less appealing.

Clint Bolick is a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution.

Read more:

Clint Bolick: Federalism a cure for what ails the U.S. - Washington Times

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist intern Spencer Lindquist joins Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to discuss his experience with critical race theory indoctrination in high school and how Americans are finally catching onto the lefts racist agenda to fight back.

The left talks a lot about equality and egalitarianism, and they use that as a smokescreen to push some pretty heinous stuff, Lindquist said. They see hierarchies as inherently evil because these are things that they feel threatened by. They feel threatened by the existence of inequalities and because of that they try and ascribe any and all forms of inequality to some form of oppression.

The left isnt backing down, Lindquist said, explaining why now is the time for parents and other Americans to speak up.

The direction of the nation, quite frankly, is at stake. There will be casualties in this culture war because we are being turned against each other on the basis of race, Lindquist said.

These are the stakes of the fight and while it might be uncomfortable thats really a small risk compared to what this looks like for your childs future, what this looks like in five years and 10 years, 50 years. This nation has unfortunately become very volatile and this is the gasoline that has been poured. Theyre continuing to pour it and they just want to toss a match on and if we let them, its going to go up in flames, he said.

Read Lindquists article My High School Taught Me Critical Race Theory Six Years Ago And Tried To Reeducate Me When I Fought Back.

Listen here:

Read the original here:

Why Keeping Critical Race Theory Away From Your Kids Requires A Lot More Than iPhone Activism - The Federalist

DENVER The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled on Monday a Colorado web designer must design and publish websites that violate her religious conscience.In the 2-1 ruling, the court ruled 303 Creative founder Lorie Smith must create graphics or websites for LGBT customers despite messaging that conflicts with her deepest beliefs.

The government should never force creative professionals to promote a message or cause with which they disagree. That is quintessential free speech and artistic freedom, said attorney John Bursch, who serves as a senior counsel and vice president oat the First Amendment non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The group represented Smith in the case, and said in a Monday statement it intends to appeal the courts ruling.

Smith filed the pre-enforcement challenge to Colorados Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits any business that offers public services from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The web designer filed the motion after she was approached to make a website for a same-sex wedding but didnt respond in order to avoid violating the act.

Activist plaintiffs have weaponized the same law to compel a neighboring Christian baker to create and design cakes that celebrate what his faith teaches is wrong. The court, however, struck down Smiths challenge and upheld the law permissibly compels [Lorie Smiths] speech, and concluded, a faith that enriches society in one way might also damage society in [an]other The 10th circuit also placed a gag order on Smith to prohibit the web designer from explaining on her page what sites are consistent with her beliefs.

In June, the law was used to fine Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips in the Denver suburb of Lakewood $500 for his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a transgender persons gender transition.

Phillips similarly made national headlines in 2012 when he refused to decorate a cake for a male same-sex wedding, but offered a wide variety of other, neutral, products to same-sex customers. At the time, the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights C0mmission alleging Phillips violated CADA.

The controversy went national, provoking harassment campaigns and death threats against the suburban baker that ultimately cost him40 percent of his income when Phillips stopped baking cakes following a lower courts initial decision against the shop. The case inspired another against Phillips after the Supreme Court announced in 2017 it would re-examine the lower courts ruling, which it ultimately overturned onnarrow grounds. Phillips is therefore still caught up in continued legal battles.

Read the original post:

Court Forces Web Designer To Celebrate What She Believes Is Wrong - The Federalist

Leading up to a U.S. Supreme Court case being heard that considers the constitutionality of pre-viability prohibitions on abortions, a new report released Tuesday found that a vast majority of European nations limit elective abortions even earlier than Mississippis 15-weeks limit.

The study was an analysis of 50 European nations, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions that have a population of more than 1 million. It found that 47 of 50 areas, or 94 percent, limit elective abortion to 15 weeks gestation or earlier.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute released their report, Mississippis 15-Week Gestational Limit on Abortion is Mainstream Compared to European Laws, prior to the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments this fall for the contentious case Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. The case is a challenge to Mississippis 2018 law limiting abortions after 15 weeks.

Mississippis law brings the United States a small step closer both to European and global norms, said attorney Angelina B. Nguyen, the author of the report and a scholar at the institute. No European nation allows elective abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, as is effectively permitted in several U.S. states, and America is one of only a small handful of nations, along with China and North Korea, to permit any sort of late-term elective abortion.

The institute found that a majority of nations, 27, limit elective abortions to 12 weeks gestation. Five countries limit elective abortions at 14 weeks gestation and a total of eight countries do not allow elective abortion, though some permit abortion for specific medical or socioeconomic reasons, according to a press release put out by the group.

Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis in 2018. However, it was invalidated inDobbs through the lower courts and now heads to the Supreme Court.

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Mike Lee of Utah put forth an amicus brief in support of theDobbspetitioners Monday,demanding the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade(1973) andPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey(1992).

See original here:

Study: Mississippi's 15-Week Limit On Abortion Is Commonsense In Europe - The Federalist

Robin DiAngelo, the far-left author of the 2018 book White Fragility and now Nice Racism, said white people use comedy as an outlet to be racist.

Comedy is, I think its an excuse to get to be racist, right? DiAngelo said in an April interview that the nonprofit organization Mythinformed shared over the weekend. I think TV shows like Family Guy and South Park and maybe a little bit The Simpsons allowed white people to be racist self-consciously, right? Like, I know Im being racist and therefore it doesnt count and its OK.

I dont think its benign to do it in a joking way, DiAngelo continued. So if you want to punch up, theres very different power dynamics and it doesnt hurt in the same way. It doesnt invoke a deep, deep centuries-long history of oppression when you poke fun at, say, white people. But its very, very different when you poke fun at people of color.

DiAngelos remarks come after the release of her new book, which debuted with only 3,500 sales and a spot on the New York Times Bestsellers list.

Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racism Harm argues that America is systemically racist and explains why it is OK to generalize about white people, according to a description of the text.

Earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported that DiAngelo charges an average of $14,000 per lecture and makes about $728,000 annually from workshops and speaking gigs. The author faced widespread backlash in February when a whistleblower at Coca-Cola documented her training that told employees to try to be less white.

Also in the recirculated footage, DiAngelo claimed whites are wrong to attribute racism to sole instances as opposed to part of a systemic structure.

We have to move well beyond that and understand it as a system, DiAngelo said. It is the foundation of both of our cultural contexts racist ideology, practices, policies are circulating across the culture and we all absorb them.

Here is the original post:

Robin DiAngelo: Comedy Gives Whites 'An Excuse To Get To Be Racist' - The Federalist

Spoilers.

If the first two seasons of Netflixs Virgin River treated relationships as commodities for achieving happiness, season three goes further and gives babies the same treatment.

The third season of the show, which is currently ranked the No. 1 TV show on Netflix, premiered on July 9. It continues the saga of former city-girl and nurse Mel Monroe, her hunky flannel-clad boyfriend (and owner of the local hangout bar) Jack Sheridan, and the rest of the quiet, woodsy mountain town of Virgin River. The small-town setting is still charming (if more of the same), but the message of the show isnt any better its more of the same, only worse.

Instead of striving after anything more meaningful, the main characters just go around trying to figure out their own happiness, and reassuring each other they deserve it, I observed after watching the first two seasons. Unfortunately, its all too reflective of how many Americans today view romance: as a disposable means of personal enjoyment and self-gratification.

I know stories often portray characters with flaws like this for the purpose of showing an eventual arc of growth and maturity. I was hoping, although not expecting, season three might reveal some growth and recognition of selfishness from main characters like Jack and Mel.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing that maybe pleasure-seeking self-gratification isnt the heartiest sustenance for a meaningful relationship, Jack and Mel take their selfish rubric and apply it to having children.As the seasons plot unfolds, Mel decides she wants a baby, but Jack (who has twins on the way with his old girlfriend, Charmaine) doesnt feel he can support two families. (This should have been his first hint that maybe treating relationships flippantly creates problems.)

Knowing he cant provide the pregnancy she wants, Jack breaks off his relationship with Mel in an attempt to put her happiness above his own. That is, until another character reminds him that relationships are built on emotions. (Forget self-sacrifice or mutual trust, emotions are the surest foundation in the minds of Netflix screenwriters.) Apparently convinced, Jack quickly backtracks and gets back together with Mel.

To Virgin Rivers credit, its refreshing to see Melwant a baby. Motherhood rarely gets the respect it deserves, on or off-screen. To see a character (with a career she loves, nonetheless) desire children as a joyful, wonderful thing is something that shouldnt be remarkable, but is.

But thats where the healthy perspective stops. When Mel is sad and feeling sorry for herself after her breakup with Jack, she goes to her sister Joey for advice. You know, you dont need Jack to have a baby, Joey counsels.

When Mel counters that shes too exhausted to start over with someone else, Joey reminds her she has two embryos left from when she tried to have a baby through in vitro fertilization (IVF) with her now-deceased husband Mark.

Unsurprisingly, the show doesnt address IVFs common problems. While its possible although even more expensive to do in a way that uses every embryo, most IVF procedures result in the death, discarding, or perpetual freezing of tiny human beings.

Because Mel and Mark created and froze the embryos to which Joey refers, theres a strong argument that Mel should choose to have the babies rather than let them sit forever in the fertility lab, even though Mark is no longer living. But thats not Joeys reasoning, nor Mels either.

Mels response is not What would be best for my baby? but self-focused questions like I cant raise a child on my own and What if having Marks baby just makes me miss him all over again?

While the question of whether shes equipped to raise a baby is an important and valid one, these considerations clearly dont stop Mel from deciding a baby will make her happy and therefore she must have one. One scene transition later, Mel is calling the fertility clinic to set up an appointment, and two episodes later we find out that she is indeed pregnant.

Jacks attitude toward his coming twins is hardly better than Mels toward her child. After he threw his relationship with Charmaine to the curb to go after Mel, Charmaine quickly found and married another man who wanted to adopt the twins. While theres plenty not to like about this character, he at least has the decency to want to raise another mans kids in a complete family.

Understandably, Jack wants to be involved in his kids lives and bristles at the idea of being replaced through this arrangement. The situation is messy, and I wont suggest theres an easy or one-size-fits-all solution for similarly situated families.

However, at no point does Jack seriously consider what would be best for his children enough to set aside his own selfish desires and perceived entitlements. Maybe letting Charmaines new husband adopt the kids isnt the best arrangement, but Jack is so blinded by his desire to have the parental relationship he wants that he doesnt even consider this. He wants the perks of being the twins dad, but not enough to marry their mother.

Surrounded by all this selfishness, theres one side plot that stands out as a beautiful picture of family and sacrifice. Lily is a local woman who, in season one, found out she was pregnant shortly after the death of her husband. After Lily initially left the baby at the health clinic out of desperation, Mel admirably convinced her to raise the baby, which she names Chloe.

In season three, Lily finds out she has terminal cancer. But even in the face of such a prognosis, every decision Lily makes is based on whats best for her baby daughter Chloe and her grown daughter Tara, who comes to stay at the farm to help her mother. Tara and Lilys selfless service to each other and to Chloe starkly contrasts the approaches Jack and Mel take to their own children.

If Virgin River is supposed to be a picturesque example of what Netflix writers and viewers think love (both romantic and parental) is, its a cheap and concerning one. Stories not only reflect culture, they set examples.

Children deserve to be sacrificially loved, and parenthood should be recognized as the precious calling and responsibility it is. To use children and parenting as highways to self-serving pleasure is to make light of social foundations we cant afford to lose.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

More:

No. 1 Netflix Show 'Virgin River' Treats Babies As Commodities - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky on the 13th anniversary of The Dark Knight to explain how the film is one of the centurys greatest pieces of art and analyze the parallels between situations in Gotham and the problems facing American society.

This is a real grounded, real city, a real universe in which Batman is a fantastical element. He stands out as being something thats very odd and uncharacteristic to the rest of the world, Domenech said.

I do not think it is an accident that some of the best superhero movies of the past two decades are movies that tend to shrink down in terms of their size and do not at any point have a shining blue beam of light coming from the skies thats going to destroy the planet. Instead, its much more grounded concerns about whether people live or die or crime that is happening within a cityscape. And thats something that I think Nolan really wanted to do and he did it with a number of different characters that actually make Batman less of the main character of this story.

I thought what grounded the movie in a way that I hadnt seen beforesomeone who is kind of caught between what they are allowed to do, what the law will allow them to do, and what they know they need to do. And thats a tension thats at the core of so many varieties of American film whether it be the Western or suspense movies or movies of the 70s and the like. And thats something that I think we really had not seen to this point within the realm of superhero films but I think weve seen it a lot since then, Domenech said.

Listen here:

Go here to read the rest:

'The Dark Knight' At 13: Ben Domenech Reflects On The Iconic Film's Cultural Legacy - The Federalist

Facebook is killing people, misinformation is rampant, and the only people who can save us from ourselves are the all-wise executives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue whose judgment is infallible and whose motives are pure. Thats the message emanating from the White House and the corporate press.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced last week that, due to 12 unnamed people on social media posting what the Biden administration considers to be misinformation, the White House is actively flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation and helping to boost trusted content. Going even further, Psaki said nothing is off the table for using Big Tech to quiet opposing views.

Not only is the Biden administration effectively deputizing Facebook to be an extension of the federal governments communications office, but it also insists that if youre banned from one Big Tech site for questioning conventional wisdom, you should be banned from all of them.

Psaki maintains the government has a responsibility, as a public health matter, to raise that issue of people allegedly dying en masse because of uncensored Facebook posts that dont comport with the White Houses vaccine messaging. This isnt a caricature of the White Houses position either. When a reporter asked President Joe Biden directly last week what his message is to sites like Facebook, Biden replied, serious as a heart attack, Theyre killing people.

This push for censorship is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the same political stripe that ridiculously cried fascism for four years under Donald Trump is now taking concrete steps to suppress political opposition, one of the hallmarks of true fascism. Its also interesting because information changes so rapidly, as Psaki herself admitted.

Science evolves, information evolves, Psaki said during the same press conference in which she pledged her commitment to silencing vaccine dissidents online.If anyone should understand the reality of information evolving, its the Biden administration.

Last fall when the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story broke, then-candidate Joe Biden insisted it was Russian disinformation and a smear campaign. When Fox Newss Peter Doocy later asked Biden about the stories of his son, the then-president-elect hurled one of his bizarre insults at the reporter, saying, God love ya man. You are a one-horse pony. Psaki piled on in October, sharing a story to Twitter that claimed, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo.

Tech giants Twitter and Facebook waged a war on the narrative, with one site spiking the stories about the Biden sons laptop from orbit and the other severely hamstringing them, under the guise of an unsubstantiated hunch that the materials were hacked and on the grounds that the stories might have been disinformation. In other words, based on Democrats narrative, tech monopolies throttled a timely story in the runup to the highly contested 2020 election, a story that directly applied to one of the candidates familial affairs and might have changed the outcome of the race and they did this with absolute impunity.

When U.S. intelligence agencies determined the Hunter Biden stories were not Russian disinformation, Big Tech shrugged. A week later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg both admitted they had no evidence that The New York Posts reporting on Joe Bidens knowledge of his son Hunter Bidens foreign business deals was Russian disinformation. Whoops. The conventional wisdom on misinformation changed, but the story had already been conveniently censored.

Psaki likewise spread misinformation online just two months before the election when she pushed afake tale about Trump calling fallen troops losers and suckers and the Russian bounties story, two narratives the media ran with that turned out to be misinformation. In fact, her misinformation-peddling goes back further. Psaki was a frequent promoter of the Russia collusion hoax in 2017 and throughout the Trump presidency.

But even on the Wuhan virus, Bidens administration and the so-called public health experts he now demands we trust have a terribly tarnished track record. Note how readily Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris undermined the vaccine during their 2020 presidential campaign:

And what about flip-flopper-in-chief Anthony Fauci, who not only knew that COVID-19 likely came from the Wuhan lab and that it potentially looked engineered and tried to cover those things up, according to his released emails (which Facebook also censored and erroneously fact-checked), but knowingly spread misinformation about masks at the start of the pandemic?

Big Tech censored posts about the Wuhan lab leak theory, which Democrats and the corrupt media called a conspiracy theory, yet Faucis mask misinformation is still online. Doocy used this line of questioning with Psaki last week with regard to the administrations collusion with Big Tech to crack down on so-called misinformation. The exchange went like this:

There are videos of Dr. Fauci from 2020, before anybody had a vaccine, and he is out there saying theres no reason to be walking around with a mask, Doocy said. So is the administration going to contact Facebook and ask them to take that down?

Well, first, I think what Dr. Fauci has said himself, whos been quite public out there, is that science evolves, information evolves and we make that available in a public way to the American people, Psaki replied. I have never seen any data to suggest that the vaccines cause infertility. That is information that is irresponsibly traveling.

About the science evolving, Doocy pushed back. Facebook used to block people from posting that COVID may have originated from a lab. That is something this president now admits is a possibility. So is there any concern that things you are trying to block or have taken down might someday turn out to be

We dont take anything down. We dont block anything, Psaki snapped back, ignoring the fact that she admits the administration is using Big Tech to do its bidding to feign clean hands. Facebook and any private-sector company makes decisions about what information should be on their platform.

Doocy is right, and the White House knows it. Todays misinformation is tomorrows undeniable fact; it happens all the time, and that reality isnt lost on the Biden administration.

Whats going on here isnt really an attempt to save Americans from disease. Its a desperate attempt by the ruling class to save their own rear ends from information that threatens their ideological goals.

Democrats at the helm of the executive and legislative branches arent looking to squash so-called misinformation because its the only way to keep people from dying (which still wouldnt justify their authoritarianism, by the way). Biden, Psaki, and their friends in Congress and Silicon Valley are working to snuff out their opponents speech because not only do they think it will help them politically, as it likely did in the 2020 election, but because they believe they can get away with it again, as they did in the 2020 election.

President Ronald Reagan was right when he said, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government, and Im here to help. The Biden administration has gotten disturbingly more specific: Im from the government, and Im here to help Facebook silence you.

Link:

Democrats' Definition Of 'Misinformation' Is What Hurts Them Politically - The Federalist

Corrupt corporate media outlets that revolved their coverage around the quest to take down former President Donald Trump saw a significant decrease in traffic after he left office.

According to recently released data, The Atlantic, ABC News, Time all saw a more than 50 percent decrease in audience since summer 2020. Forbes saw the largest drop with more than 60 percent declining viewership while Vox and Politico experienced more than 40 percent in audience reduction.

The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, CNBC, The Guardian, The Hill, Los Angeles Times, and Axios, some of the other publications that capitalized on anti-Trump rhetoric and fake news reporting saw traffic fall more than 20 and sometimes even thirty percent compared to traffic in 2020.

The same trends occurred in cable news. Not only did corporate media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC see large declines in audience viewership during the second quarter of the year, but Fox News, a notably right-leaning network, topped ratings for the quarter and the month of June.

In total day, Fox News averaged 1.17 million in total viewers, down 35%; MSNBC posted 763,000, down 37% and CNN was at 580,000, down 49%. In the 25-54 demo, the numbers were 195,000 for Fox News, down 42%, 133,000 for CNN, falling 59% and 99,000 for MSNBC, dropping by 48%, Deadline reported.

In 2017, Trump predicted the corporate medias inability to capture viewers once he left office.

Newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if Im not there, because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes, he said.

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

See the original post:

Corporate Media Outlets Lost More Than Half Their Audiences In The Last Year - The Federalist