Five ways the CFPB could rein in Facebook – American Banker

Posted on by

Rohit Chopra, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is laying the groundwork to rein in Facebook and other Big Tech companies with expanded oversight and potentially a public rebuke on how they collect and sell consumer data.

Meta Platformss Facebook has long been in Chopras sights. He wrote a scathing rebuke of what he called Facebooks illegal data practices in 2019 while serving on the Federal Trade Commission.

At the time, Chopra lamented that the FTCs $5 billion settlement with Facebook for privacy violations was too small given the social media giants status as a repeat offender of regulatory orders. Chopra wanted CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg to be held personally liable and has called for more restrictions on the tech giants ad-driven practices.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Since taking control of the CFPB in October, Chopra has made several moves to bolster the CFPBs authority to designate Facebook or any other Big Tech firm as posing a risk to consumers.

Its clearly one of Director Chopras desires to bring the Big Tech companies within the purview of the CFPBs regulatory oversight, said Jenny Lee, a partner at ArentFox Schiff. Its a new emphasis and there are a half a dozen ways to go after Big Tech.

For the past few months, Chopra has laid out an arsenal of tools against large financial firms that were informed by his analysis of the FTCs Facebook settlement. He has dug into the CFPBs broad authority, found obscure new mechanisms to use and highlighted existing Dodd-Frank Act rules to shine a light on Facebooks consumer practices.

The CFPB declined to comment for this story, and Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

Taking action any Facebook, which had $86 billion in revenue last year, appears to be a priority though it could strain the CFPBs resources and may come at the expense of other enforcement actions.

It looks like hes taking his time to set up the chess pieces on the board, said Richard Horn, co-managing partner at Garris Horn and a former CFPB senior counsel and special advisor. Thats probably why we havent seen a lot of enforcement actions, in terms of quantity, because those investigations take a ton of research and back-and-forth between CFPB attorneys and Big Tech companies in general.

Here are the five main ways the CFPB could use its authority to enforce laws against Facebook and other technology firms.

See the original post:

Five ways the CFPB could rein in Facebook - American Banker

Russia Fines Big Tech Companies Over User Data and Apple May Be Next – The Mac Observer

Posted on by

According to reports, Apple and other Big Tech companies may find themselves facing a series of fines from Russia for failing to store user data within the country.

Currently, tech companies Twitch, Pinterest, Airbnb and UPS have already seen fines. Google may be seeing the most fines over the past year. The issue has seen parallels with similar situations in China.

In a report from Reuters, a Moscow court stated that it has given fines to Twitch, Pinterest, Airbnb and UPS on Tuesday for refusing to store Russian citizens personal data within the country.

Russia has gone toe-to-toe with Big Tech concerning content, censorship and data and local representation in a spat that has devolved into a full scale battle. This issue has been occurring since Russia sent thousands of troops to Ukraine February 24.

Currently, most fines are between the one to two million rouble range. This roughly equates to between $19,000 and $38,000. Fines do escalate for repeat offenses. Google was fined 15 million roubles ($278,552) this month. This is also due to failing to comply with Russia legislation on data storage. The company also saw a 3 million rouble ($55,710) penalty last year. So far, Google has seen fines totaling $340,000.

Apple typically complies with local laws in the countries in which they operate. However, more companies are currently defying Russia due to the invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, Apple did bend to a similar law in China way back in 2018. Due to local laws in China, Apple moved the iCloud data of Chinese customers to a server operated by GCBD, which is owned by the provincial government.

At the time, Apple did its best to deny that authorities in China were given free-reign over user data. Apple did claim that there were no backdoors within any of its systems. Though, the nature of the Chinese government made it seem unlikely that the new servers were truly free of spying.

Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, Apple has been cooperating with sanctions against Russia. In March, a loophole did allow some Apple Pay payments to process even though they were not meant to. Cupertino then decided to continue blocking these payments. Tim Cook also stated to employees that the company would be tripling its humanitarian aid donations toward organizations providing aid to Ukraine.

Lastly, Russia has also began heavily censoring the news its citizens receive. Due to this, the move saw a rise in VPN downloads within the country.

Concerning user data, many tech companies are in a pickle. Do they continue to defy governments that are seen as untrustworthy? To what extent can they continue to fight? Right now, it seems like Big Tech is in the middle of a dangerous balancing act. One that may result in some users losing data privacy.

Read more:

Russia Fines Big Tech Companies Over User Data and Apple May Be Next - The Mac Observer

Can Big Tech manage the surging wave of unionization? – eMarketer

Posted on by

The news: Tech workers around the country are preparing to embrace the labor movement after decades of being left behind.

It is going to be a great change, said David Sullivan, an executive of the union that recently celebrated a first-of-its kind election at an Apple retail store, per Bloomberg.

Why this matters: As Big Tech companies become wealthier and more influential, many of their workers are looking to unions to negotiate more equitable compensation and benefits as well as organize around ethical issues.

Efforts to unionize in the US:

Whats next? 50% of tech workers are interested in joining a union, according to a 2021 Tech Employee Survey conducted by Protocol and Morning Consult.

Big Tech has been responding with a measured mix of compensation raises and union-busting maneuvers to avoid unionization.

The bigger picture: Expect the situation to intensify as momentum from Amazon and Apple employees union wins could inspire a domino effect in other shops.

More here:

Can Big Tech manage the surging wave of unionization? - eMarketer

Big tech’s group wants to boost trust in the metaverse – Quartz

Posted on by

The Metaverse Standards Forum, a collection of big tech companies working to establish guidelines for metaverse platforms, has been in the planning stages for some time, but the timing of its launch this week is unfortunate. Bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency of the metaverse, is down nearly 60% in the last two quarters, along with much of the stock market, as inflation and interest rate hikes pinch consumers. Similarly, employers are pressing workers to move away from thevirtual and remote work dynamics that have gained currency over the last two years.

Ever since Mark Zuckerberg helped popularized the term metaverse last year to describe the intersection of gaming, virtual work, and socializing, assisted by augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and crypto, the space has been under extreme critical scrutiny from skeptics. Some of that negative attention is likely due to Zuckerbergs own somewhat damaged profile as the CEO of Meta. But there are others who point to a number of concerns around the business viability of what some are calling the next phase of the internet.

For business leaders versus broader consumer adoption, I would say its the headset, says Andrew Hawken, the co-founder and CEO of UK-based VR startup Mesmerise. It often presents a very powerful psychological barrier. Its not like learning to use an iPhone or iPadVR technology makes first-time users feel vulnerable and even a bit silly as they navigate the virtual world. So you can imagine why theres some hesitancy from senior executives to put on a headset to lead meetings with their colleagues and clients in the metaverse.

On June 17, the Nasdaq stock exchange held its first opening bell event in the metaverse, highlighting how seriously Wall Street is taking the new technology. And just days later, on June 20, Zuckerberg offered another look at the next version of the Quest VR headset, just a couple of months after launching Metas first brick-and-mortar store devoted to selling and demonstrating metaverse products.

Meanwhile, this week in New York City, the NFT NYC blockchain conference is being held as billions are being lost (at least for now) by crypto speculators like Michael Saylor, layoffs are hitting Coinbase, the spaces most high-profile exchange, and NFT theft is running rampant.

Currently, things arent looking great for the already vague future of the metaverse as its slow growth and current economic conditions increase the number of doubters questioning its relevance. Still, Citi has projected the metaverse be worth up to $13 trillion by 2030, and new multimillion dollar investments from the likes of accounting firm KPMG ($30 million), crypto exchange Binance ($500 million, with the help of DST Global Partners and Breyer Capital), and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz ($600 million) pour into the space nearly every month.

One of the biggest metaverse companies, Applea longtime AR leader that is rumored to be launching a VR headset in 2023hasnt joined the Metaverse Standards Forum yet, which begins formally meeting in July. But the absence of one big tech brand doesnt seem to be slowing the organizations initiatives, which could eventually influence all companies launching their version of the metaverse.

Slowly, companies are coming to realize that they will need a better way to work than teleconferencing, says Hawken of the metaverse, especially [companies] with global, hybrid teams.

Despite these challenges, the Metaverse Standards Forum is pushing forward with an impressive list ofmembers that includes Adobe, Epic Games, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Wayfair, IKEA, Qualcomm, Sony, Alibaba, Huawei, and Unity. And while the names associated with the effort are largely leaders in the tech industry, the organization is free to join, and will not enforce a strict set of standards forcompanies building metaverse platforms. Given that somewhat loose framework, some may question what the true purpose of the organization is, since there are no real world consequences or tangible rules around the association and its membership.

[Its a] venue for building industry consensus on critical requirements for metaverse standards and exercising real-world interoperability with plugfest projects, says Khronos Group president Neil Trevett, who also serves as the chair of the Metaverse Standards Forum. The Forum is not trying to dictate technologies or business models to the industry, its actually the reverse, the standards organizations in the Forum are seeking industry input on requirements to help steer their standardization activities. And of course, the Forum cannot force any company to use any standardcompanies will choose to use standards that add value to their business.

Excerpt from:

Big tech's group wants to boost trust in the metaverse - Quartz

Berenberg initiates coverage on Big Tech and LBG Media at ‘buy’ – ShareCast

Posted on by

Analysts at Berenberg initiated coverage on software-as-a-services firm Big Technologies with a 'buy' rating and 320.0p target price on Monday, branding the group as "the big disrupter".

Berenberg stated Big Technologies was a disruptive company that entirely generates revenues from its criminal justice product, Buddi Smart Tag, which provides real-time tracking of monitored offenders on rehabilitative programmes.

With the group taking market share from incumbents that operate on legacy technology by winning long-term government contracts, providing high revenue visibility, and its "good

pricing power" and "less price-sensitive" customer base, Berenberg said Big Technologies was "a good asset to own during inflationary cycles".

"The group is expected to grow its top line and EPS by mid-teens percentages, as per our base case, but there is scope for c70% outperformance of our FY 2024 earnings estimate through a combination of more contract wins and highly accretive M&A in the next 12-15 months," said Berenberg.

Berenberg also started coverage on digital content publisher LBG Media with a 'buy' rating and a 180.0p target price, stating that despite its short history as a public company, it believes that LBG has created "a wide competitive moat".

The German bank praised LBG for its global audience of roughly 264.0m social media followers, its ability to reach 64% of the "highly coveted, yet hard-to-reach" 18-34-year-old demographic in the UK, and its "vertical dominance" in key interest areas.

"This makes it the industry-leading youth publisher, in our view. We believe there is no reason for LBG's audience growth or revenue per user to stagnate in FY 2022-24E, as consensus assumes. Coupled with ample firepower for further M&A, we believe LBG could materially outperform our base-case estimates," concluded the analysts.

Reporting by Iain Gilbert at Sharecast.com

Continue reading here:

Berenberg initiates coverage on Big Tech and LBG Media at 'buy' - ShareCast

Juha Saarinen: Big Tech has its eye on your house – New Zealand Herald

Posted on by

Business

28 Jun, 2022 05:00 PM4 minutes to read

The Netatmo weather station comprises four separate wireless gauges. Photo / Supplied

OPINION:

Home automation. It's been in the works for decades, after butlers and maids to perform tasks below your station like switching lights on and off became too expensive to hire.

Past home automation efforts were neither here nor there as we didn't have ubiquitous wireless networks over which mobile devices can be prodded to open doors, and to set air conditioners and heat pumps to uncomfortable temperatures so as to entice dinner party guests to leave.

Now we do, and the big tech companies have pretty much stitched up the home automation market. Not Microsoft, which flubbed mobility and with it, a slice of the $100 billion home automation market.

Apple however dipped its oar in with the HomeKit framework that has been around for eight years now.

It remains a minnow compared to the vast amount of products that Google and Amazon's Alexa can connect to. We're talking a few hundred devices compared to tens of thousands.

Why bother with HomeKit then? Privacy and security are two good reasons, ease of use another. Since you're networking your home, you shouldn't overlook those factors. Apple does have a good track record here.

HomeKit itself works pretty well. Mostly, as it does have some quirks and the total bill for devices can be high.

My HomeKit experiment featured some of Legrand's Netatmo devices, namely the nicely designed Smart Home Weather Station, Rain Gauge, and Anemometer.

A Smart Indoor Camera was also included in the package, but it was the environmental metering that I was keen to check out, at a total cost of $565 for the devices.

Setting up the indoors and outdoors weather station units through HomeKit and adding the rain and wind metering accessories was pleasantly trouble free using QR codes.

The physical installation was a little harder for the anemometer which needs to be high up.

At least 1.2 metres above the tallest bit of the roof, in fact, to avoid eddies and turbulence messing with the ultrasonic sensors. As you can tell, I didn't fall off the roof and lived to write this column.

To get the most out of the Netatmo devices, you'll want the Legrand iOS app which gives you pretty charts showing the temperature, rainfall and wind speed over time.

Apple's Home app doesn't give you much of that, and won't work remotely over the Internet without a $159 HomePod, a pricier 4th Gen Apple TV or a spare iPad which is annoying.

You can also join Netatmo's weather map to check the climates at other stations around the world, while sharing what it's like outside where you are. New Zealanders have bought quite a few Netatmo devices according to the map, and I wish there was a way to be more selective about the location information the station shares.

Legrand promises fairly good accuracy for the devices, like 0.5 metres per second for the anemometer, +/- 0.3 C for temperature, and 1mm/hour for the tipping buckets rain gauge.

Overall, home automation is a seductive concept that I suspect will eat into what little spare time and cash that I have, as I try to connect and control more devices.

It is marred by the lack of interoperability between devices and frameworks though.

The good news is that the tech industry has recognised that kind of lock-in as a problem, one that irritates customers and which might even attract regulator attention.

They're trying to fix it with the oddly named Matters open source standard for home automation systems but it has been delayed again until some time this year.

Meanwhile, where there's a need there's a will, and people are taking matters into their own hands so to speak. You'll find thriving communities of developers who've been there, done that, like the HomeBridge.io project that has thousands of HomeKit plug-ins for all sorts of devices.

An open standard for home automation would make life a great deal easier for developers, so here's hoping Matters will happen.

Read more from the original source:

Juha Saarinen: Big Tech has its eye on your house - New Zealand Herald

Big Tech Dives into Healthcare With Google Parent Alphabet at the Forefront – The Quint

Posted on by

The market for wearable technology has grown a lot in the last ten years, with fitness and health tracking features being the main USP of most such devices in the market.

Googles 2021 acquisition of Fitbit for over $2 billion was their entry into the wearables market. Since then, the Pixel Watch has also entered the ring, with revolutionary new features.

Aside from the basic features like counting steps taken or calories burned, there are also new technologies being introduced like a sensor that can detect irregularities in the wearers pulse.

This sensor has recently received FDA approval, The Economist reports. Googles Pixel phone cameras can detect heart blood oxygen levels using image processing and their smart home devices can monitor sleep patterns by listening to snoring.

Apple is another strong player in this arena, with their whole arsenal of fitness and health tracking features on the Apple Watch and iPhone.

The rest is here:

Big Tech Dives into Healthcare With Google Parent Alphabet at the Forefront - The Quint

Tech Layoffs: US Startups And Tech Companies With Job Cuts In 2022 – Crunchbase News

Posted on by

After a banner year for tech, layoffs are here. In fact, as of late June, more than 22,000 workers in the U.S. tech sector have been laid off in mass job cuts so far in 2022, according to a Crunchbase News tally.

Grow your revenue with all-in-one prospecting solutions powered by the leader in private-company data.

Tech companies as big as Netflix have slashed jobs this year, with some citing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and others pointing to overhiring during periods of rapid growth. Robinhood, Glossier and Better are just a few of the tech companies that have notably trimmed their headcount in 2022.

To keep tabs, weve compiled a list of U.S.-based tech companies that have laid off employees so far this year.

New additions in the past week include Netflix, Ro, and Postscript.

Most recently updated: June 27, 2022

The public markets have been hit hard in 2022, and thats trickled down to the private markets. Inflation concerns, rising interest rates and geopolitical issues have all contributed to a roller coaster stock market.

Startupsespecially the ones who benefited from a pandemic boom thats starting to coolare starting to feel the pressure too. Valuations, particularly at the late stage, have started to dip, and startups say its much more difficult to raise new funding in this environment.

Weve included both startups and publicly traded companies that are based in the U.S. Weve also included companies based elsewhere that have a sizable team in the United States, such as Klarna, even when its unclear how much of the U.S. workforce has been affected by layoffs.

We sourced the layoffs from media reports, social media posts and layoffs.fyi, a crowdsourced database of tech layoffs.

Our hope is that this database will be as comprehensive as possible, so if weve missed any companies or if your company goes through layoffs, please let us know by filling out this form.

This layoff tracker will be updated at least weekly, if not more frequently.

Illustration: Dom Guzman

Stay up to date with recent funding rounds, acquisitions, and more with the Crunchbase Daily.

Read this article:

Tech Layoffs: US Startups And Tech Companies With Job Cuts In 2022 - Crunchbase News

Oceania Innovates With The Implementation Of A $500m Sustainability-Linked Loan | Scoop News – Scoop

Posted on by

Wednesday, 29 June 2022, 10:26 amPress Release: Oceania Group

Oceania has implemented a $500 million five-yeardebt-facility, its first sustainability-linked loan. Thismeans that over two thirds of Oceanias debt-funding isnow tied to ambitious environmental and socialsustainability goals.

The funding will go towardsdelivering Oceanias business growth strategy, enablingOceania to accelerate its development pipeline and grow thebusiness through organic and inorganic opportunities, at thesame time as enhancing the resident experience and buildingits people capability.

Oceanias business strategyis underpinned by a commitment to sustainability, usingmeasures and goals to benchmark environmental, social andgovernance (ESG) aspects. The five-year loan will commitOceania to certain year-on-year targets to qualify for theloan interest discount, and penalty interest can be incurredif targets are not met.

Asustainability-linked loan is an important step inOceanias sustainability journey and it is encouraging tohave wellbeing and resident experience as the hallmark ofour social metric, said CEO Brent Pattison.

Oceaniais striving for excellence in both clinical best practiceand resident wellbeing. This loan encourages us to go evenfurther with our model of care excellence and help us toachieve our ambition of being the leader in the delivery ofresident-centred retirement and aged care living in NewZealand.

As evidence of climate change becomesmore apparent, we must take responsibility and implementinitiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We arecommitted to reducing our controllable emissions throughongoing measurement, an emissions reduction plan and workingtowards becoming science-based target verified, headded.

Oceanias CFO Kathryn Waugh said linking theloan to sustainability goals and measures is testament toOceanias commitment to sustainable growth.

Weknow that ESG is important to our people, our residents andour stakeholders. We wanted to link our borrowings to oursustainability vision and commitments so we can drive ourperformance even further and with greaterambition.

ANZ is the sole mandated lead arrangerand sustainability coordinator for Oceaniasloan.

ANZ Head of Sustainable Finance Dean Spicer,congratulated Oceania on linking its borrowings toenvironmental and social goals.

The KPIs willprovide a roadmap for sustainable investment, while alsoproviding a financial incentive to hit targets. Weredelighted to be on this journey with Oceania as they strivefor even greater sustainability in their operations, hesaid.

The establishment of a meaningful measurementof care residents wellbeing is an important developmentfor the sector. Social impact is challenging to quantify,and by including this holistic assessment of social,physical and psychological wellbeing, Oceania is furtherencouraged to support improvements in residentexperience, he added.

Accountancy firm Ernst &Young provided limited assurance over the KPIs and loansustainability performance targets against internationallyrecognised Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles.

TheLenders to the syndicated facility included ANZ, ASB andICBC.

Scoop Media

Become a member Find out more

View post:

Oceania Innovates With The Implementation Of A $500m Sustainability-Linked Loan | Scoop News - Scoop

Toua honoured to be inducted – POST-COURIER

Posted on by

June 28, 2022

BY DAVID SUSUVE

Team PNG set another impressive medal record finishing on top of the 2022 Mini Pacific Games Medal tally.

PNG won 33 gold, 28 silver and 19 bronze and there were some personal records and achievements set by the athletes and weightlifting queen Dika Toua was one of those athletes who once again bagged a handful including an award.

She was honored be inducted into the International Weightlifting Federation Hall of Fame.

Toua was again at her best winning three gold medals in the 49 kg weight class of the 2022 Pacific Mini Games in the Northern Marianas.

The 38-year-old Toua said she has been competing in the sport of weightlifting for more than 20 years and it was an honour to be inducted.

Toua, who first competed in the 1999 South Pacific Games hosted by Guam, also won her 13th title in the Oceania Weightlifting Championships which coincided with the 2022 Pacific Mini Games.

I am grateful and thank you to the Lord for rewarding me with this award.

Im sure my achievement will go on to inspire many young women out there to pursue their dreams in sports, says Toua who also won gold in the Oceania Weightlifting Championships.

Apart from the medals and award, Toua (pictured) was also awarded the Games top female athlete.

She said it was emotional because it brought back great memories of her career, which has eventually paid off.

She said the Mini Games will help her prepare for the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, London next month.

She said the Mini Games have brought up the standard in the Pacific because the accommodation is brilliant.

Toua thanked her sponsor Trukai Industries, the PNG Olympic Committee and Paul Coffa in supporting her over the years.

My achievement wouldnt be possible if it wasnt without the support of these people which Im grateful for.

See original here:

Toua honoured to be inducted - POST-COURIER

Dedication and training pays off for Rotorua athletes at Oceania Area Championships – New Zealand Herald

Posted on by

Hannah Gapes giving her all on the track at the Oceania Area Championships. Photo / Supplied

Dedication and training came to fruition for two Lake City Athletic Club athletes at the Oceania Area Championships.

The championships were held in Mackay, Queensland recently.

Rotorua's Lisa Adams, Paralympic F37 shot putter and F38 discus thrower, won the open para shot put with a throw of 14.45m.

Lisa said she was both excited and nervous on competition day, which is her norm.

She said she should have been happier with her result, but that is because as an athlete you are always wanting more.

"It was cool, of course you want to do well."

Lisa said she liked the Oceania Area Championships because Oceania is our region, and it is one of the few times you get to compete with and see athletes from the smaller neighbouring nations.

"At the last Oceania Area Championships in Townsville 2019, there were three to four para athletes doing shot put and this year there was eight of us, so it's growing which is really cool."

She says the next big focus is the World Championships in Paris next year, but since it is more than a year she will probably use a closer competition as something to work towards.

Lisa says at the Oceania Area Championships there were also wellbeing workshops and seminars held every day for athletes, para athletes, coaches, officials.

"It was awesome to be able to attend them and to listen and learn. It was pretty cool that was put on by Oceanias."

Rotorua runner Hannah Gapes said leading up to Oceanias she was on a pre-tour with the New Zealand team, where she competed in a 3000m invitational at the Gold Coast, placing second, and a 1500m Mackay invitational which she won.

"Coping with the heat was challenging, but I was really happy with my 1500m race. I had some really great workouts leading into the event as well."

For Oceanias, she competed in the 3000m and placed second.

"I wasn't overly happy with how I performed, but I gained a lot of experience, and it was a great opportunity to race alongside Australia's top U20 middle distance runner."

Gapes said she had a 10-week training block for this event, specifically designed by her coach Jason Cameron.

"Typically this included a combination of easy longer runs and higher speed shorter runs.

"These were done on trails, road and for the speed work I travelled to Tauranga to their all-weather track."

She hadn't competed at the Oceania Area Championships before.

"This was the first time representing New Zealand as Covid has cancelled events that I had previously been selected for," she said.

"It was such an amazing experience to be surrounded by like-minded people with similar goals, and it was great to make friendships with people outside my event.

Gapes said she really enjoyed being able to train and get to know others for the two-and-a-half weeks she was there.

"It was a lot of fun. To finally be able to wear the white and black New Zealand uniform was another step to realising my dream and a huge privilege."

Looking ahead, Gapes is planning on doing a 3000m time trial on the track in Nelson this weekend where she hoped to reach her time-based goal.

Then she would jump straight into cross country training.

"The North Islands are coming up in three weeks, and the NZ U20 Cross Country Championships in July, both held at my favourite cross country course - Taup's Spa Park.

"National cross country will be my final race in New Zealand for the season.

"I will take a small break then head over to the States to commence study and the American cross country session with the North Carolina State University [Wolfpack] women's team."

She thanked Mikro Charitable Trust and Lake City Athletics for their support.

View original post here:

Dedication and training pays off for Rotorua athletes at Oceania Area Championships - New Zealand Herald

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She’ll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe – The Federalist

Posted on by

Virginia Ginni Thomas, a prominent conservative activist who is also married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is demanding that the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 elaborate on its basis for soliciting testimony over privately petitioning her own government.

Hours after the Jan. 6 Committee wrapped up its sixth hearing on Tuesday, Ginnis attorney, Mark Paoletta, sent a letter to the panels leadership requesting specifics on why the probe with an open animosity for the Thomas family seeks to publicly drag his client before lawmakers.

Mrs. Thomas is eager to clear her name and is willing to appear before the Committee to do so, Paoletta wrote to Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. However, based on my understanding of the communications that spurred the Committees request, I do not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas.

In March, Ginni became the center of a fabricated controversy related to the Jan. 6 Committees investigation when the panel leaked a series of private text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages, 29 in all, revealed a conservative activist pleading with a government official to continue investigating allegations of election fraud in the pandemic-era contest, which included record-level turnout in the form of mail-in voting that was ripe for misconduct.

Committee members escalated their efforts to compel Ginnis testimony earlier this month after more private communications were revealed with individuals involved in former President Donald Trumps efforts to halt certification of the 2020 election. Thompson told Axios his colleagues on the panel think its time that we, at some point, invite her [Thomas] to come talk to the committee.

Ginni said shortly after she looked forward to talking to them.

I cant wait to clear up misconceptions, she told the Daily Caller.

Further examination of the committees request, however, has given Ginni pause.

The panels request focuses on Ginnis communications with attorney and law professor John Eastman, who produced legal theories to justify delays in certification of the electoral college. The extent of the pairs contact, however, as outlined by Paoletta, stretches to generic emails forwarded by Ginni on a large distribution list and an invitation to speak to a group of conservative activists, a type of event Ginni organizes regularly.

Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman, Paoletta wrote.

Paoletta also outlined skepticism that the committee was operating in good faith in its desire to bring Ginni before lawmakers, considering her husband is among the most targeted members of the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Thompson stood by his comments calling Justice Thomas Uncle Tom in a speech with the New Nation of Islam, which believes intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.

Thomas doesnt like black people, [and] he doesnt like being black, the congressman said.

These statements by the Committees chairman certainly raise alarm bells when the committee says that it wants to speak with Mrs. Thomas, Paoletta wrote.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Here is the original post:

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She'll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe - The Federalist

After Roe, Never Trumpers Should Just Admit They Were Wrong – The Federalist

Posted on by

The lefts reaction to the Supreme Courts historic decision last week overturningRoe v. Wadehas been uniformly appalling but not at all surprising:violence,calls for more violence,calls to pack the court, ignore its decisions,dissolve it. In other words, about what youd expect from people who want to destroy every institution they dont control.

On the right, the reaction has been rather more mixed, mainly because of the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of the Never Trump faction, whose leading lights cant bring themselves to give credit to former President Donald Trump for accomplishing what the Republican establishment could not.

Make no mistake: without Trump,Roewould still be on the books. No other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, and no other GOP president would have yielded the results Trump did once in office.

Trump didnt just deliver three solid originalist justices to the Supreme Court, he did so despite enormous pressure from Democrats and the media pressure that any other politician almost certainly would have submitted to. Would any other Republican president have stood by Brett Kavanaugh amid the orchestrated smear campaign against him, or nominated someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than six weeks before the 2020 presidential election? Of course not, and everyone knows it.

Trump was able to do these things precisely because he possesses qualities his Never Trump critics most deplore: combativeness, a disdain for the media, political instincts that told him the Supreme Court was of paramount importance to his conservative base and that he needed to deliver on the promises he made.

Indeed, crediting Trump for his central role in the overturning ofRoeshould not be a heavy lift, even for those who are no fans of the former president. You can think of him as a kind of Balaams ass, if you like, and still recognize the essential part he played.

For Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, the easiest way to avoid this reckoning is simple hypocrisy. Just write the opposite of what you wrote in the past, and blame Trump for your intellectual dishonesty.

But for some Never Trumpers, the whole thing iscomplicated. Thats how Timothy Carney of the American Enterprise Institute put it last week ina Washington Examiner columnthat was mostly a bunch of throat-clearing about how bad Trump was for the GOP brand and how much he hurt the conservative movement.

Never mind that the conservative movement Trump supposedly hurt has been working for decades to overturnRoe v. Wade, and indeed largely defined itself through opposition to abortion in an era when every major institution in American life was arrayed against it.

Carney doesnt engage that argument, or any other, because he has no argument to make. He admits as much when he says, no issue in politics is more important than abortion because no cause is more righteous than protecting innocent babies from slaughter. No president did more good on abortion than Trump. So this makes things complicated.

No, it doesnt. It only makes things complicated if youre wedded to the idea that decorum is more important than actual victories for the conservative cause, or if you draw a paycheck from a Never Trump bastion like AEI. Maybe then its complicated. But out in the real world, where untold children will escape being butchered in the womb partly as a result of Trumps resolve, it isnt complicated at all.

Read in the best possible light, Carneys hand-wringing over Trumps role in all this is at least a tacit acknowledgement that he might have been wrong. Not so for the impossible-to-parody Kevin Williamson of National Review, who wasted no timechurning out a laughably dishonest columnabout how the end ofRoeisnt Trumps victory.

Why? Because, says Williamson, Trump did what any Republican president would have done and delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society. It does not seem to enter into Williamsons thinking that Trump perhaps turned to the Federalist Society in light of the past failures of Republican presidents to nominate justices sufficiently originalist to overturnRoe. Indeed, it was a plurality opinion from a trio of justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush that botched the chance to overturnRoe30 years ago inPlanned Parenthood v Casey, and instead maintained its central holding that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Never mind all that, says Williamson. No conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism or any other major conservative issue. But as Williamson surely knows, many conservatives (including some literate ones!) supported Trump in 2016precisely becausehe committed to nominating Supreme Court justices who were solid on judicial originalism, and evenreleased a list of possible nomineesin May 2016 something no other GOP primary candidate had ever done. Indeed, his explicit commitment to nominate originalist justices is one reason many Republicans who were on the fence about Trump decided to vote for him in the end.

None of this matters to Never Trumpers of Williamsons bent of mind. To them, reality even something as real and astounding as the end ofRoe will never overturn their smug conviction that they were right to oppose Trump. So satisfied are they in their own opinions and prejudices that nothing so mundane as actual events will ever persuade them they were wrong.

So be it. Its not like the Republican Party needs the dozens of voters whose views these pundits represent. Williamson can go on writing his snarky, nattering columns peppered with snide little insults to Trump and the people who supported him. One has to pay the bills, after all, so he might as well have fun with it. Carney can go on striving to sound measured and respectable, for all its worth.

But the rest of us on the right, including some (like me) who havecome to realize they were wrong about Trump, will remember that it took Trump, of all people, to bring about a result so glorious and long-sought that honest conservatives should be willing, even happy, to admit they were wrong.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Read the original:

After Roe, Never Trumpers Should Just Admit They Were Wrong - The Federalist

How Democrats Made Themselves Miserable And Want You To Be Too – The Federalist

Posted on by

Editors note: The following is an adapted excerpt from Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone, by Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry, available now on Amazon.

It made some sense that liberal Democrats would be bitter immediately after the 2016 election. The country had just denied Hillary Clintonyes, Empress Hillary Clintonas heir to her throne and instead chose to elevate a foul-mouthed barbarian named Donald Trump to the presidency.

A true outsider who represented all the things liberals hate masculinity, optimism, independenceruined the illusion that America was now exclusively their domain, a place they had hoped to use for their racial fixations, green energy projects, and weird gender-bender social experiments.

They lost. And losing hurts. But its not supposed to be permanent. The next critical election is always within arms reach and there are more productive ways to spend time than holding on to the pain of the last one.

As of 2016, though, liberals and Democrats no longer saw things that way, if they ever truly did at all. After that election, they believed there was no reason to pretend that they understood differences of political opinion, nor that they could tolerate them. They no longer viewed Republicans, conservatives, or even just open-minded independents as the opposition in an honest democracy. They saw them all as an existential enemy that needed to be extinguished.

And thus began our long journey through hell. Pussy hats. Public crying. Fake hate crimes perpetrated by nonexistent Trump supporters. Safe spaces. Angry, vulgar protests broadcast on network television under the guise of being Hollywood award ceremonies. The tragic rise of liberal civil rights attorney Ben Crump. On and on.

And if you thought the four years under Donald Trump were bad, those were a piece of cake compared with what would come. A presidential election was approaching in 2020 and the economy was booming. What were Democrats and their reliable friends in the news media left to do other than turn up the dial to a breaking point, generate mass race rioting and covid hysteria, then promise the public that it would only go away if they were put in charge?

It was fraudulent but enough voters found it persuasive. The bigger problem, however, was that by validating the tactic and voting for Joe Biden, Americans effectively encouraged the Lefts worst impulse, which is to spread its own bitter, joyless misery.

Even when Democrats emerged victorious from the suffocating bonfire of 2020, having control of the White House and all of Congress for two years, has their mood change? No. Its only gotten worse.

They may have traded their pussy hats for Fauci prayer candles, but the attitude has never been angrier or more spiteful. Vengeance has animated them each and every day.

There are scores of studies, surveys, reports and data to back up that truism. But like others, I also know it so well firsthand.

As just one (perfect) example, in November of last year I was sitting with two friends at the bar of All Purpose, a popular pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. One friend, a white woman in her early 30s, had exchanged niceties with the bar server, also a white woman who appeared to be in her 30s, and with dyed hair that made it look like a mix between silver and very light purple.

My friends and I at one point were discussing the not-guilty verdict that had just been rendered in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I mentioned that it was amazing how many people were under the impression that Rittenhouse was prosecuted for shooting blacks, when in fact all parties involved with his case were white. My friend said that nonetheless, she believed that racism colored the outcome of the trial.

What makes it racist? I asked.

Immediately, the bartender with the dye job looked up from the drink she was preparing to declare, WHAT MAKES IT RACIST IS

But just as quick as she was to insert herself, I held up the palm of my hand and said, We were just talking among ourselves.

Okay, no problem, she said. And then I watched her for the duration of our time sitting there as she walked around, alerting every other member of staff about the belligerent racist who wouldnt let her speak.

I mean, I dont know for certain thats what she was telling her coworkers, but is there any doubt? Thats precisely what an obnoxious liberal would do anywhere.

This isnt normal behavior. Normal people dont assume its their place to butt in on the discussions of strangers, let alone when those strangers will be deciding how much of a tip to leave. The level of discomfort that these monsters are willing to instill on well-meaning, unassuming people has no boundaries. It can be minor, say a cold shoulder at a social gathering, and it can be extreme to the point of obscenity.

Their thoughts and feelings about politics are no longer a piece of their lives, but all-consuming. Its not without consequence. When half the country chooses to exist in a perpetual state of irritability, vindictiveness, and intolerance, were all forced to share in the misery.

Read the rest here:

How Democrats Made Themselves Miserable And Want You To Be Too - The Federalist

Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic – The Federalist

Posted on by

Those who seek to destroy or delegitimize the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution are no better than those who desire to overturn or delegitimize presidential elections. In fact, they probably pose a greater long-term threat to American democracy.

Now, if you believe the above contention is hyperbole, consider that many leftists arent merely advocating for court-packing or nullification of the Dobbs decision; they justify those attacks with a litany of other grievances about the constitutional order.

Even as the Supreme Court relinquished its power, and threw the abortion issueunmentioned anywhere in the Constitutionback to the voters, a horde of j-school graduates and politicians, either ignorant of basic civics or contemptuous of them, descended with panic-stricken warnings about the demise of democracy. Almost none of their objections were grounded in any sort of legal arguments about the alleged constitutionality of terminating unwanted human beings. Instead, their case centered around the specious idea that the court had undermined the will of voters by no longer dictating abortion policy by judicial fiat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, at this point, sounds virtually indistinguishable from Senate leadership or the authoritarians writing at The Washington Post, points out that seven of the nine justices on the court were appointed by a party that hasnt won a popular vote more than once in 30 years, that one of their seats was stolen, and that several lied to Congress to secure their appointment

None of those contentions are true. Every single justice on the court, including the ones Democrats preemptively smeared as deviants to undermine the legitimacy of the court, was nominated using the prescribed constitutional method that is used by every party. And every senator who voted to confirm those justices did so using the only legal process available to them. The popular vote is not a real thing.

When Democrats win both the Senate and the White House, they have the power to nominate and confirm any justice they desire. But they also seem to be under the impression that when they win only the White House, theyre still authorized to dictate whom Republicans are allowed to confirm (as was the case with Merrick Garland). And when they are completely out of national power, they simply reject the legitimacy of justices who do not meet their invented, evolving, extraconstitutional standards. Democrats treat every victory of the opposition as dubiously attained.

The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, says former Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod. But what happens when you have a tyranny of the minority, gaming the system to promote a radical agenda that flouts the will of the majority under the guise of constitutionalism? Similar assertions were repeated across the left-wing punditsphere this weekend.

Axelrod, in true Obama fashion, begs the question. But the fact that the Electoral College doesnt align with the popular vote isnt a disqualifying aspect of American politics, it is the very point. If the Electoral College always synchronized with the outcome of the nonexistent direct democratic national tallies, it wouldnt need to exist. It isnt a loophole; it is a deliberately created mechanism that stops a handful of states from dominating policy. (Not only is the national vote immaterial, but we really have no idea what one would look like because (winning) candidates do not run up scores in big states, they campaign nationally.)

Though I do wonder what remedy Axelrod or Ocasio-Cortez have in mind for this supposed problem? Should the GOP abdicate the presidency to a Democrat every time it fails to win the nonexistent popular vote? Should Republican senators from smaller states ignore their constituents and ask Elizabeth Warren for permission to support judicial nominees? Sounds like one-party rule.

None of this is to even mention that a lack of national legislation on an issue isnt a tyranny of the minority. Its federalism. There is no other way to keep a sprawling, geographically, ethnically, culturally, religiously diverse nation free and self-governing. Thats why enumerated powers exist. And thats also why the increasingly radical progressive left is obsessed with getting rid of the filibuster, the only thing preserving some semblance of legislative limitation on federal power. The only people who refer to federalism as minority rule are people who believe that Americans need to be ruled over in the first place. Indeed, the court did not stop Illinois from making its own abortion policies. Its Axelrod who wants the court to compel, by edict, abortion policy in states like Mississippi.

Democrats want the Supreme Court, created to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws free from political pressures, to follow public opinion polls. The only way we can truly know how voters feel about abortion is by subjecting the issue to the democratic process. Whether Roe, a legal decision, is popular is irrelevantthough its unsurprising the majority of Americans, after decades of media championing abortion, know little about it. Because, at some point, voters will decide if the Democratic Partys new position, government-funded abortion on demand until crowning, or the position of states like Mississippi, 15 weeks bans, are more radical.

When the Supreme Court concocted the constitutional right to abortion in 1973, the pro-life movement didnt promise to dismantle the system; rather it spent 50 years creating an intellectual and political movement that would begin to restore proper constitutional limits. They voted for presidents who promised to put textualists on the bench and elected senators who would confirm them. If youre unhappy with those rules, you are free to amend the Constitution. But, for the contemporary left, democracy isnt just a euphemism for policies we support anymore, its a pernicious belief that Republicans have a responsibility to live in a political system that exists outside of the Constitution. And a system with two sets of rules is untenable.

See the rest here:

Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic - The Federalist

Dear Prolifers: Your Labor Was Not In Vain – The Federalist

Posted on by

Your labor was not in vain. The national regime of abortion on demand imposed by Roe v. Wade is over, thanks as much to the humble and unheralded as to the powerful and connected.

Yes, the Dobbs decision was made by Supreme Court justices, appointed by presidents and confirmed by senators, and they deserve the praise they receive. But the pro-life movement was sustained by the millions of Americans who just wouldnt quit.

They didnt quit when the Supreme Court said the issue was settled, then said so again. They didnt quit when all of the cultural powers-that-be from academia to Hollywood disdained and reviled them. They didnt quit despite decades of minimal gains and routine betrayals by politicians and judges.

Instead, they kept marching and praying. They kept volunteering and voting. They kept writing and speaking. And they were not just political activists. They built networks of crisis pregnancy centers and other charities to help women and children in need, providing everything from diapers to baby formula to health care.

Within families, churches, and communities, they made innumerable decisions to protect human life. They became adoptive and foster parents to care for the abused and abandoned. They are the grandparents who helped when told of an unexpected pregnancy, rather than encouraging the disposal of the unplanned child.

There are, of course, professional pro-lifers leading and staffing organizations. But the pro-life movement is sustained by its volunteers. And they are remarkable for their persistence and their unselfishness. They donate their time and treasure to a movement that they know will not make them safer, healthier, or wealthier.

They were not fighting for their own rights. They were not lobbying for more benefits for themselves. In a political system and culture dominated by self-interest, they have never demanded anything for themselves.

It is, of course, true that abortion is generally destructive to society. It breaks the primal social bond of mother, father, and child and hardens the hearts it doesnt stop. Leaving a womb-shaped hole in legal protection for human life precludes a culture and politics of real solidarity.

But although pro-lifers recognized these broad evils of abortion culture, they are not what motivated the movement. If that was all they cared about, it would have been easier to just work on protecting their own families and communities (which is indeed a moral obligation). But pro-lifers care about the specific injustice of abortion: that it is the deliberate, violent taking of an innocent human life.

So they spoke for those whose voices could not yet be heard, and who were being discarded as inconvenient and unwanted. They marched and voted, yes. But they also gave and counseled and helped and taught. They just wouldnt quit. Now, they finally won.

This is not, of course, a final victory. Overturning Roe only returns the question of abortion to the democratic process, and now even as some states restrict it others are funding it. But ending Roe breaks the legal siege that had trapped the pro-life cause, subjecting every restriction on abortion to the caprice of the federal judiciary.

Pro-lifers should rejoice and be rejuvenated by the end of Roe. This is an opportunity not only to restrict and even ban elective abortion in many states, but also to develop affirmatively pro-life and pro-family policies. There are pro-lifer scholars, such as my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Patrick Brown, who have been preparing for this, and their suggestions should be given consideration.

There will, of course, be disagreements about the best way to do this, and it is possible that one size will not fit all. What works for Utah might not work as well in Alabama. But the pro-lifers will be there, pushing year after year, in every state, to protect human life in law and provide help when children and families need it.

The battle against Roe is over, but the war for a pro-life American has just begun, as pro-abortion state legislatures are embracing abortion more than ever. Although pro-lifers in those states will have a harder task before them, they can take courage from knowing that victory is possible. The decades-long struggle to overturn Roe proves the pro-life movement will endure, and that it can win. And they will keep fighting, even if it takes generations.

The Dobbs decision is a victory, above all, for the humans in utero whose lives may now be protected in laws. And it is due to all of those who labored in the pro-life movement without knowing if this day would ever come.

This win is for the volunteer receptionist at the crisis pregnancy center. For the doctor spending Saturday mornings providing free ultrasounds and exams. For the grandmother quietly praying the rosary outside of an abortion clinic.

Its for the college students who memorialized Roe on their campuses with fields of crosses despite insults and vandalism. For those running baby bottle drives for ministries providing support and resources to pregnant women. For the activists who worked to elect pro-life leaders locally and nationally, and the voters who voted for life, even as everyone said their vote never mattered.

For all of these and more, your labor has not been in vain. Lives were saved, a pro-life culture was nourished, and politicians and judges finally corrected one of this nations greatest evils.

There is more to do, but for now, thank you.

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

View original post here:

Dear Prolifers: Your Labor Was Not In Vain - The Federalist

Democrats’ Abortion Views Are Far Too Radical To Benefit From Post-Roe – The Federalist

Posted on by

As soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling finally overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision that had so roiled the nation for nearly 50 years, Democrats and their allies who control corporate media began asserting it would be a political boon for their party.

Democrats see abortion as a big base motivator and a potential winning issue with independents, claimed Politico.

Democrats could certainly use some help. The party controls all of Washington, D.C. Voters have indicated theyre prepared to deliver large Republican gains in November in response to a series of Democrat policy failures leading to a looming recession, labor problems, supply chain disruptions, high gas prices, rising crime, another foreign war without a strategy for victory, and a completely out of control border.

But there are several problems for Democrats hoping to stem the losses, including that the general Democrat position of abortion on demand until the moment of birth is far too radical to gain politically in most areas of the country. Even CBS polling found that only 17 percent of Americans agree with such an extreme stance.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision, despite the media disinformation, simply returns abortion law to the states, enabling citizens and their elected representatives to debate and set abortion laws and policies. Roe had falsely decreed that a right to abortion was in the Constitution, and therefore beyond public debate, a view the court flatly and finally rejected last week.

Abortion is a hotly debated topic, and neither those who oppose or support it are likely to be fully happy about public opinion. Most Americans strongly oppose abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, but most Americans also support some allowances for abortion at earlier stages in pregnancy. In May, a Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans support making abortion illegal or legal only in certain circumstances.

While the decision may help Democrats hold onto a few suburban seats Republicans had hoped to wrestle back from the party in power, it is unlikely to help them in battleground states and districts where Republicans are experiencing dramatic gains. California and New York may be ready to pass even more radical abortion legislation, but not every state is as leftist as those are. And Democrats and the media are in for a rude awakening if they think everyone is as extreme as they are in their bubbles.

For example, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced his plans to pass protections for babies who have reached 15 weeks of age in the womb. Thats the type of popular protection that will pass in a swing state, but would be viewed as anathema for New York newsrooms. A recent Fox poll found that a majority oppose abortion after 15 weeks. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal found more support than opposition for 15-week abortion bans like those now permitted in America.

So take a state like Nevada. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election, voted in May for a bill that would legalize abortion to the moment of birth, forbid states from enacting protections for unborn life, and expand taxpayer funding. Her opponent Adam Laxalt is endorsed by pro-life groups and supports at least some protections for unborn children.

As attorney general of Nevada, he signed onto a legal brief assisting the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were facing crippling fines from the Obama administration for not funding abortifacients. Is Cortez Mastos radical stance really going to help her in a state where one out of every four residents is Hispanic, many of them Roman Catholic or evangelical? Is she really going to get major traction on her stance that its okay for children to have their lives violently ended in the womb for no other reason than theyre the wrong sex?

Pennsylvania also has a Senate race, and the Democrat nominee John Fetterman already publicly announced his support for the ruthless abortion-until-birth legislation Cortez Masto voted for. The legislation which had bipartisan opposition but still had 48 senators and 218 congressmen voting for it explicitly states the right to abortion on demand shall not be limited or otherwise infringed.

Fetterman is running against Mehmet Oz, who has stated hes pro-life but would support popular exceptions to abortion bans. Is Fettermans extreme stance going to help or hurt him in November? Ditto New Hampshires Maggie Hassan.

In North Carolina, Democrat nominee Cheri Beasley has made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the central argument of her campaign. She wants federal legislation to codify this view. By contrast, her opponent Ted Budd says he thinks states should handle abortion law and he has focused his campaign on how to improve the economy.

Polls show that voters are dramatically more worried about the economy than focused on abortion. Traditionally, those who care the most about abortion tend to vote for Republicans. Even if Budd had an extreme pro-life position, and he doesnt, the issue would probably break 50-50 in the southern state, rather than be a huge boon for Beasley.

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life: that ending human life in the womb should be legal for any reason up until the moment the baby is being born.

The signature legislation nearly all of them voted for weeks ago would have forbidden state-level protections for babies with Down syndrome or other disabilities, overturned informed consent laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court, prohibited state restrictions blocking abortion when the unborn child can feel pain, and completely removed conscientious protections for health-care employees who oppose abortion. This is an extremely radical set of positions. For instance, 75 percent of Americans support protecting the conscience rights of health-care employees. And seven out of ten Americans oppose aborting children because they have Down syndrome.

Its also not just that Democrats have to affirmatively support that view but that they will also be saddled with the policy position that any restriction, no matter how minor and no matter how popular, such as a 15-week abortion ban, is untenable.

Democrats and their media allies are trying to spread conspiracy theories about banning contraception or same-sex marriage to make Republicans seem less moderate, but those efforts will suffer from the lack of evidence to support them. The pro-life movement has been vibrant and active for 50 solid years, marching each January in the nations capital, and working diligently to pass laws protecting human lives. There is no movement for the conspiracy theories being spread by corporate media.

Few people realize how radical the American abortion position was prior to Dobbs. This week, Noah Smith tweeted a picture of how restrictive European abortion laws are relative to the Roe era in the United States, adding, Wow. Today I learned that Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than most of the U.S. did up until this week.

While pro-lifers have known that for decades, the media run by people with extremely liberal views on abortion have hidden those facts from their readers and viewers. But Americans are learning these facts about the Democrat position and how radical it is.

Another problem for Democrats is that prior to Dobbs, the main campaign strategy was to gin up hysteria about the January 6 riot. Since the leak of the draft decision, abortion supporters have engaged in campaigns of violence against churches and maternal care centers.

Last week, prominent Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Joe Biden began calling on their base voters to protest in the streets. Leading leftists also claimed the Supreme Court was now illegitimate, because it had ruled on the law in a way that differed from their preferred policies. Media figures began spreading disinformation about abortion being banned in America.

It will be exceedingly difficult to continue the January 6 show trial while this widespread and orchestrated campaign of violence is happening nationwide.

Exceedingly few Americans support Democrats policies in favor of abortion until the moment of birth. DC-based media and Democrat strategists exist in a bubble that isolates them from public opinion.

But elections happen in places where views have to be explicitly stated and contend with public opinion. Outside of a small handful of House districts in suburban areas dominated by wealthy and college-educated white women, the more GOP candidates speak confidently and unapologetically about their views, they will have the political edge.

The rest is here:

Democrats' Abortion Views Are Far Too Radical To Benefit From Post-Roe - The Federalist

Why Aren’t More Republicans Noting Risks Of Infant Covid Shots? – The Federalist

Posted on by

A little over a week ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) authorized the first round of Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 shots for infants as young as 6 months old. The decision came following a unanimous agreement among members of the FDAs advisory panel, who recommended the jabs for children under the age of five.

Together, with science leading the charge, we have takenanother important stepforwardin our nations fight against COVID-19, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky in a statement on the matter. We know millions of parents and caregivers are eager to get their young children vaccinated, and with todays decision, they can.

Walensky would later go on to falsely claim during a Thursday press conference that Covid-19 has been one of the top five causes of death for children since the beginning of its outbreak, making her the third CDC official this month to make this assertion.

In greenlighting the use of Covid jabs for infants, the CDC and FDA also officially made the United States the first country in the world to do so. U.S. President Joe Biden took to Twitter to celebrate the decision, saying that For the first time in our fight against this pandemic, nearly every American can now have access to life-saving vaccines.

Similar sentiments were also echoed by White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who repeatedly emphasized how America would be the first country on earth to give mRNA vaccines to its youngest children.

As has long been established, children are the least at-risk age demographic with respect to Covid-19. As of June 2, 2022, for instance, 0-to 17-year-olds comprised approximately 0.1 percent of the total Covid-related deaths in the United States. Recent studies conducted in Sweden and Germany have also documented similar trends, with both analyses finding Covid fatalities among healthy children in each European country to be nearly nonexistent.

In addition to children not being super-spreaders of the virus, research shows the majority of American children have already recovered from Covid and therefore possess immunity to reinfection. According to the CDCs own data, approximately 75 percent of children in the United States have recovered from Covid. Numerous scientific studies have shown individuals previously infected with the virus possess robust natural immunity.

In light of such minimal risk to children and that the jabs dont stop individuals from getting or spreading the virus, medical professionals have begun to raise concerns about the U.S. governments push to vaccinate infants against Covid, given the risk of harmful side effects balanced against the potential benefits. While speaking with radio host Dan Bongino on Fox News, renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough expressed dismay at the FDAs decision and noted the effects of the virus are characteristically a mild syndrome in children when compared to the elderly.

We know even if [the vaccines are] used in kids, there wont be any differences in rates of Covid-19 serious outcomes, he said, referencing two studies on the subject. Theres no reductions in hospitalizations and deaths in the randomized trials. And, Dan, we have no assurances that these are safe over the long term.

Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, also voiced concerns about the FDA and CDCs actions and criticized the data the health agencies cited as justification for their position.

There was NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE in the vaccine study cited by FDA &CDC to recommend the vax in babies through kids<5, Makary said in a tweet. Any respected medical journal would normally reject this study for publication. How does the CDC so vigorously recommend this with such strong language?

Makary later expanded upon his assessment in a recent Fox News op-ed, saying the studies cited by the federal government were too small to achieve statistical significance when evaluating efficacy against mild or severe COVID-19 infection.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a recent press conference also highlighted the medical concerns about giving healthy babies Covid shots.

We are not gonna have any [state] programs where were trying to jab 6-month-old babies with mRNA. Thats just the reality, he said, while referencing several data points on the subject. The White House is bragging that were the only country that is trying to do mRNA shots for infants Theres nothing wrong with being the lone ranger if youre right, but the other countries in Europe that are going a different direction, similar to the direction Floridas gone, they have been right on Covid way more than [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and his crew have been throughout this whole thing.

Germany and France, along with Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, have all restricted the distribution of the Moderna Covid shots for individuals under the age of 30, all citing the documented risk of heart inflammation among young people as justification. Florida has also taken similar actions, with the states Department of Health becoming the first in the nation to recommend against the use of Covid shots for children back in March.

The willingness of DeSantis to listen to medical professionals who courageously raise questions about the CDC and FDAs decision-making process is a much-needed breath of fresh air. For too long, Americas health bureaucracy has operated with little oversight, with agencies like the CDC and FDA apparently functioning as rubber stamps for Big Pharma rather than legitimate scientific institutions.

While the decision to vaccinate ones child is an individual choice for parents, the blanket authorization from the CDC and FDA to jab infants against scientific evidence accepted by many scientists and peer nations deserves far greater scrutiny and investigation. Doing so, however, would mean acting in the best interests of their voters and the public, something Republicans frequently fail to do.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

See original here:

Why Aren't More Republicans Noting Risks Of Infant Covid Shots? - The Federalist

Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections – The Federalist

Posted on by

President Biden really does not want the public to know about his federal takeover of election administration. Dozens of members of Congress have repeatedly asked for details, to no avail. Good government groups, members of the media, and private citizens have filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Not a single one has been responded to. All signs indicate a concerted effort to keep the public in the dark until at least after the November midterm elections. The lack of transparency and responsiveness is so bad that the Department of Justice and some of its agencies have been repeatedly sued for the information.

When President Biden ordered all 600 federal agencies to expand citizens opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process on March 7, 2021, Republican politicians, Constitutional scholars, and election integrity specialists began to worry exactly what was up his sleeve.

They had good reason. The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run Get Out The Vote operations from inside state and local government election offices, predominantly in the Democrat-leaning areas of swing states. Independent researchers have shown the effect of this takeover of government election offices was extremely partisan and favored Democrats overwhelmingly.

At the time the order was issued, Democrats were also hoping to pass H.R. 1, a continuation of the effort to destabilize elections throughout the country via a federalized takeover of state election administrations.

Biden gave each agency 200 days to file their plans for approval by none other than Susan Rice, his hyperpartisan domestic policy advisor. Yet fully nine months after those plans were due, they are all being hidden from the public, even as evidence is emerging that the election operation is in full swing.

There are several major problems with Bidens secret plan, critics say. Its unethical to tie federal benefits to election activity. Its unconstitutional to have the federal government take authority that belongs to the states and which Congress has not granted. And, given that all 50 states have different laws and processes governing election administration, its a recipe for chaos, confusion, and fraud at a time when election security concerns are particularly fraught.

Mobilizing voters is always a political act. Choosing which groups to target for Get Out The Vote efforts is one of the most important activities done by political campaigns. Federal agencies that interact with the public by doling out benefits can easily pressure recipients to vote for particular candidates and positions. Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, which bans bureaucrats and bureaucracies from being involved in election activities after Democrats used Works Progress Administration programs and personnel for partisan political advantage.

Executive Order 14019 ignores that the Constitution does not give the executive branch authority over elections. That power is reserved for the states, with a smaller role for Congress. With H.R. 1 and other Democrat Party efforts to grab more control over elections have thus far failed, Congress hasnt authorized such an expansion.

As with previous efforts to destabilize elections, the chaos and confusion that would occur are part of the plan. The Executive Order copied much of a white paper put out by left-wing dark money group Demos, which advocates for left-wing changes to the country and which brags on its website that it moves bold progressive ideas from cutting-edge concept to practical reality. Not coincidentally, Biden put former Demos President K. Sabeel Rahman and former Demos Legal Strategies Director Chiraag Bains in key White House posts to oversee election-related initiatives.

Rahman serves as senior counsel at the White House office that oversees regulatory changes, meaning he approves every federal agencys regulations and provides legal review of executive orders before theyre released. If you were looking to rush out constitutionally and ethically questionable orders, this post would be key to fill. Bains had been Demos director of legal strategies, helping write the paper that was turned into an executive order. He reports directly to Susan Rice, the hyperpartisan head of the Domestic Policy Council.

Rice has served in political positions in Democrat White Houses and the scandal-ridden Brookings Institution. She played a role in the spying-on-Trump scandal, blatantly lying about the same, lying about the Benghazi terrorist attack, and lying about Bowe Bergdahls military record.

Rice is described as President Obamas right-hand woman, and its been said she was like a sister to the former president. She was his National Security Advisor at the same time Hunter Biden was hitching rides on official White House aircraft to other countries for meetings with oligarchs and corrupt government officials. She spread conspiracy theories about the law enforcement officers in Portland during the violent BLM riots that besieged the city. Most worrisome, she was briefed on the Clinton campaigns Russia collusion hoax, which was used to destabilize the 2020 election and question its illegitimacy.

Conservatives may be in the dark, but left-wing activist groups are fully involved in the plot. The left-wing dark money group Demos put out press releases immediately after the executive order was issued, saying it would be happy to work with federal agencies on the project.

And then the group admitted publicly that it organized agency-based working groups and met with the staff in these agencies to provide technical expertise as they developed their initial voter registration plans, to ensure those plans reflect the knowledge and priorities of various agency stakeholders. It also admits it developed research and resources to assist and advance agency efforts to implement robust voter registration opportunities, including a slide deck explainer of the agencies potential for impact, best practices for conducting voter registration at federal agencies, and recommendations for modernizing and improving the accessibility of Vote.gov.

All of that information should be available to oversight authorities in Congress and the American taxpayers paying for its implementation, not just the left-wing groups that produced it. Yet as of this publication date, none of it has been shared.

Bidens plan raises serious ethical, legal, and constitutional concerns, wrote Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., along with three dozen Republican members of Congress on January 19, in a letter to the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), demanding more information by February 28 about the secret plot. It went unanswered.

The top Republican members of nine House committees and subcommittees likewise demanded information from Rice and the head of OMB in a letter they sent on March 29. They noted that election activity goes well beyond the scope of each agencys authorizing statute and mission.

One of the concerns shared by the members was that Biden was directing agencies to work with third-party organizations. Nobody knows which third-party organizations have been approved by Rice for her political efforts, nor which are being used. They also asked how much money is being spent on the effort, which statutory authorities justify the election activities, and what steps are being taken to avoid Hatch Act violations. They received no response.

The Foundation for Government Accountability filed a lawsuit on April 20th to compel the Department of Justice to respond to the FOIA request for information. And the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) filed suit on June 16 to compel Justice to comply. Those suits are ongoing.

While the White House and agencies are steadfastly refusing to share details about how theyre complying with the executive order, who they met with to develop their plans, or how theyre justifying their involvement in something Congress has not authorized them to participate in, some details are trickling out. Here are a few examples of the widespread and coordinated effort by Bidens political appointees to meddle in the state administration of elections.

The tactics being used by these agencies were almost certainly contained in the plans submitted to Rice that have been withheld from investigators and overseers who had hoped to have some transparency about what the plans were. Frequently, the agencies claim the tactics are in response to the executive order, yet information about how they were developed has been withheld from the public for much of the year.

It is unclear why Biden and his political appointees are being so secretive about the work that went into their plan to engage in a federal takeover of election administration.

Whatever the case, Americans have a right to know whether these bureaucracies that are meddling in elections have experts in for each states election laws, what type of training is going on to ensure that state laws are being followed, whether they are allowing inspections and oversight to ensure no illegal activity, how they are determining whether a third-party group is genuinely non-partisan, whether they are allowing state investigators to approve money, and how much is being spent on this federal takeover of elections.

Original post:

Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections - The Federalist

Merrick Garland’s DOJ Is A Threat To The Republic – The Federalist

Posted on by

Its become painfully obvious over the past year that the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland has been weaponized and politicized to the point that it represents an active threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers. Its not too much to say that Garlands DOJ has become a threat to the republic.

Just take this past week. On Thursday, following an historic 6-3U.S. Supreme Court rulingthat struck down a New York law for violating state residents Second Amendment rights, a DOJ spokeswoman released a statement saying we respectfully disagree with the ruling.

The ruling is of coursea great victory for the Constitutionand a long-overdue vindication of New Yorkers Second Amendment rights. The law in question had been on the books for more than a century, and made it nearly impossible for ordinary people to obtain a concealed-carry license, The unconstitutional law forced New Yorkers to prove to a municipal bureaucrat that they needed a gun for self-defense. In practice, this made it almost impossible for law-abiding citizens in New York to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

But neither the law in question nor the Supreme Courts decision implicates federal gun laws in any way. There is no reason for the DOJ to weigh in on the matter or express any opinion whatsoever on the ruling. Only an utterly politicized Justice Department hoping to undermine the Supreme Courts constitutional authority and sow the seeds of nullification would issue such a statement.

But thats not nearly the worst thing Garlands DOJ did this week. In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen federal investigatorsraided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official with the Trump administration. Why? Because Clark had the temerity to investigate claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

That made Clark a target for the House Democrats Jan. 6 committee, whose Soviet-style show trial spent a good deal of time Wednesday implying that Clark, who once oversaw 1,400 lawyers and two divisions at DOJ, is traitor who tried to overturn the results of the election.

This should come as no surprise, since the entireraison dtreof the Jan. 6 committee is to smear anyone who questioned the outcome of the election or raised concerns about its unprecedented irregularities as a coup-plotter responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection. In fact, Clarks only crime is that in a sea of attorneys who didnt want to lift a finger to investigate the election, he looked for options and fought to uncover the truth.

Of course, hes not the only one the DOJ targeted this week. The same day Clarks house was raided, FBI agentsraided the home of Michael McDonald, Nevadas top GOP official.

His crime, according to the Justice Department and the Jan. 6 committee, was signing a document with five other Nevada Republican Party electors after the 2020 election signaling their support for Trump. Among the signatories of the purely symbolic document was state GOP secretary James DeGraffenreid, whom FBI agents tried but failed to find on Wednesday.

These are just a few of the people against whom the Jan. 6 committee has unleashed Garlands Justice Department. So far, the committee hassubpoenaed more than 100 lawmakers, local officials like McDonald and DeGraffenreid, internet and communications companies, Trump White House officials, and others. Make no mistake: the committee is using the DOJ as a weapon against its political enemies, and Garland is allowing it to happen.

We should have seen this coming. From the outset of his tenure, Garland has betrayed a willingness to use the DOJ as a partisan weapon. There was theraid on Project Veritas founder James OKeefes homelast November, and preceding thatmonths of illegal spyingon his organization.

Even worse, in some ways, was theunprecedented memoin October designed to threaten and silence parents whose only crime was to speak out about the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Garland smeared them as domestic terrorists and directed the Department of Justice and the FBI to launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

But this rise in criminal conduct was pure fiction. Garland got it from a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association, which made vague and unsubstantiated claims about threats and acts of violence against school board members from parents opposed to critical race theory. Less than a week after the letter was sent, Garlands memo appeared. It was a transparent ploy to get the federal government to intimidate parents into silence and suppress their First Amendment rights, which Garland was happy to do.

At every turn, Garland has shown himself hostile to the Bill of Rights and to law-abiding Americans who exercise those rights, and beholden to Democrat partisans and left-wing advocacy groups. He has brazenly allowed political influence to direct the Justice Departments considerable powers.

If you think Garlands DOJ isnt a threat to the republic, then you need to start paying attention, because the weaponization of federal law enforcement under Biden and Garland is almost certainly going to get much worse.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

See more here:

Merrick Garland's DOJ Is A Threat To The Republic - The Federalist