Monthly Archives: May 2021

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas House has advanced legislation that would require K-12 school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to teach informed American patriotism through the founding documents of the U.S. starting in the 2021-22 school year.

The House passed House Bill 4509, by state Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, by a voice vote Thursday afternoon. It will need one more vote before it can be sent to the Texas Senate, which has already approved the similar Senate Bill 2026, authored by state Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood.

HB 4509 would, among other things, mandate that students study documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to promote understanding of the fundamental moral principles of the country.

Before voting on the bill Thursday, the House adopted an amendment proposed by Bonnen to include speeches by Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have A Dream speech as part of the required texts mentioned in the bill. That came after criticism that the bill initially focused on writings by white historical figures.

At a House Public Education Committee hearing last month, Bonnen said documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence captured firsthand struggles, triumphs, challenges and beliefs upon which America was founded.

To ensure Texas students gain access to receive exposure to these founding documents, we must ensure these primary historic sources are incorporated into the state education curriculum across all grade levels, he said last month.

But Maggie Stern, a youth civic engagement and education coordinator at Childrens Defense Fund, said at last months hearing that the curriculum should also highlight the contributions of women; Black, Native, Latino and Asian people; and other people of color in addition to the white Founding Fathers.

In a state with a growing multiracial youth population, its particularly vital that this education is inclusive and relevant to all students, Stern said. Comprehensive civic education requires more than just memorizing facts without context or application. Civic knowledge is important.

The approval of HB 4509 came only a few days after the Texas House gave final approval to House Bill 3979 amid pushback from education, business and community groups and multiple proposed amendments from Democrats. HB 3979 would limit what public school students can be taught about the United States history of racism and how racism has shaped systems within the nation. That includes limits on critical race theory. And critics of HB 3979 said some of its provisions would discourage students civic engagement.

While HB 3979 focuses on what teachers cannot teach, HB 4509 outlines what concepts must be taught, such as the structure, function, and processes of government institutions. The bill also lists the instructional materials students will be required to learn from, including the first Lincoln-Douglas debates and excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville s Democracy in America.

Bonnen said at last months hearing that only 23% of Texans under age 45 can pass the civics test from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while 90% of immigrants can pass the test. He said founding documents make up the historical truths surrounding Americas birth, and they need to be incorporated into K-12 education.

The proposal comes after Gov. Greg Abbott asked lawmakers to prioritize expanding civics education in Texas during the 2021 session. Republican state legislators have proposed multiple bills to modify what children are taught in schools, including limiting the teaching of critical race theory and a greater emphasis on the countrys founding documents.

Thomas Lindsay, distinguished senior fellow of higher education and constitutional studies at the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, testified last month that the bill would lead to more-informed voting.

Weve got a lot of action and weve got a lot of passion, Lindsay said. We need thinkers. Think first. Learn first. Understand the U.S. Constitution first, and then you will see the stakes involved and then you will become involved in an informed way.

Michael Baumgartner is a representative of Civics 4 Yall, a student-led advocacy group at St. Edwards University working to provide young Texans with civic engagement opportunities. He said the founding documents are vital to learn, but civics education should also promote active citizenship and student activities outside of the classroom.

Civics education should be about learning the history of our great nation and providing young citizens a place to discuss policy problems while being taught efficient ways to engage in the process of solving them, Baumgartner said.

Disclosure: St. Edwards University and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribunes journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

See the article here:

Texas students must learn informed American patriotism in bill House OKs - The Texas Tribune

Twitters trending topics took issue with a post from Donald Trump Jr. which compared President Joe Biden to former President Jimmy Carter as opposed to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Biden isnt the next FDR hes the next Jimmy Carter, Trump Jr. wrote, hours after a new jobs report Friday morning signaled a long, slow recovery ahead with missed expectations by 700,000 jobs added in April.

Twitters editorialized trending topics highlighted the post, branding users confused as if Trump Jr.s tweet was a personal attack of character.

People are confused by a Tweet from Donald Trump Jr., saying that President Biden isnt the next FDR hes the next Jimmy Carter, the platform-publisher wrote, given that former president Carter is a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose humanitarian record is largely respected.

Trump Jr. published another post on the topic after Twitter began amplifying confusion.

Anyone who is supposedly confused, by my below tweet should probably read the awful Biden job report out today, Trump Jr. wrote. Then take a peek at the rising prices of raw materials that were seeing and then finally google Jimmy Carter inflation.Things will make a lot more sense to you!

The report out Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows about 266,000 new jobs were added for the month of April, far short of the million jobs predicted as millions of Americans rake in more on government assistance as opposed to an earned paycheck. School closings endorsed by the Biden administration meanwhile, have kept millions of working parents home, unable to re-join the workforce.

Generous government handouts combined with school closures ticked the unemployment rate up to 6.1 percent despite more jobs available this spring than there were in the days leading up to the pandemic last year.

Follow this link:

Twitter Employees Confused Why Biden Is Comparable To Jimmy Carter - The Federalist

More than 120 retired flag officers are calling on Americans to rally and reject the nations excessive embrace of a radical leftist agenda, particularly the antiracism efforts the left weaponizes to suppress dissent.

Our nation is in deep peril. We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776, wrote the prominent group of 124 retired generals and admirals. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty.

The signatories, which include President Ronald Reagans former National Security Adviser John Poindexter, President George W. Bushs former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Gerald Boykin, and retired Army Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, who is now running for Senate in New Hampshire, rail against a litany of left-wing pursuits showcased in the first 100 days of the new administration led by President Joe Biden, who has redefined what it means to run a far-left presidency.

The retired flag officers blasted the Democrats assault on election integrity, pursuit of open borders, rampant Silicon Valley censorship, re-engagement with the Iran nuclear deal, dismissal of energy independence highlighted through the elimination of the Keystone Pipeline, weaponization of the military to gaslight the public of right-wing threats, excuses for left-wing anarchists in city streets,and the recent confusion over nuclear code procedures at the White House.

Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration, our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government, the officers wrote.

Biden has aggressively pursued this agenda in large part through the power of the pen, with no clear legislative mandate to enact a hard-left agenda given a November victory of less than 43,000 votes across three tipping-point states, an evenly divided Senate, and narrow six-seat majority in the lower chamber after unexpected Democrat losses in the House.

The Current Administration has launched a full-blown assault on our Constitutional rights in a dictatorial manner, bypassing the Congress, with more than 50 Executive Orders quickly signed, many reversing the previous Administrations effective policies and regulations, write the retired officers, noting Biden has the most orders signed since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Moreover, population control actions such as excessive lockdowns, school and business closures, and most alarming, censorship of written and verbal expression are all direct assaults on our fundamental rights.

The group is calling on Americans to throw out far-left politicians in favor of candidates at the federal, state, and local levels who place value in fiscal responsibility and individual rights over socialist collectivism as conditions present prime and necessary circumstances for the revival of a new 21st-century Tea Party movement.

The survival of our Nation and its cherished freedoms, liberty, and historic values are at stake, they wrote.

See the original post:

thefederalist.com More Than 120 Retired Flag Officers Call For Revival Of A New Tea Party - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Charles Payne, host of Fox Businesss Making Money, joins Senior Editor Chris Bedford to discuss woke capital, COVID-19 economic recovery, rising inflation risk, and why the U.S. is the best country to climb the economic ladder.

You talk about not wanting to be American or wanting to be global and being afraid to be proud of your American roots, thats one of the reasons I think we really have seen these corporations become so involved in as to take on conservative American values to the degree that they have over the last few years, Payne said.

You can take on conservatives because you know you can grow your business around the rest of the world a lot quicker, Payne explained.

Its a stepping stone, the notion of stepping and moving up the ladder. And each rung bringing a different level notches of economic success but a certain pride and we can do that in this country better than anywhere else in the world, Payne said.

And I dont care what kind of weird survey some leftists will show you, theres no other country with better upward mobility than America. We just have to apply ourselves, he said.

Listen here:

Visit link:

Charles Payne On Woke Capital, COVID Recovery, And Inflation Risk The Federalist 10.05.2021 21:51 - The Federalist

To the extent that Americans are aware of them at all, the Anti-Federalists are remembered as a band of vaguely disreputable second-raters who failed to prevent the 1788 ratification of the US Constitutiona document that for many Americans has become, over the past two centuries, something approaching a divine instrument.

But now, at a moment when so many of the Constitution's vaunted democratic safeguards seem to be breaking down, the Anti-Federalists' legacy may be due for a more respectful reassessment. As a matter of fact, the Anti-Federalists deserve credit for seeing the future quite clearly, and for perceiving, long before the rest of us could, some of the Constitution's most dangerous latent defects. So what did the Anti-Federalists believe? And what led them to oppose the Constitution's ratification?

Anti-Federalist thinking was complex, and Anti-Federalists disagreed with one another on many specific policy questions. Indeed, their fractiousness explains, in part, why they failed to defeat the Constitution. But at the core of Anti-Federalism was a coherent set of beliefs about human nature, the promise and peril of democracy, and how to design democratic institutions. The late, great political theorist Wilson Carey McWilliams summed up the Anti-Federalists' fundamental beliefs this way:

The Anti-Federalists believed that democratic government depended on the virtue of individual citizens andstrange as this may sound to usthat government must be designed to foster that virtue, by creating the "public happiness" that grows out of citizens having an intimate connection to self-government as a collective enterprise.

Public happiness is what Thomas Jefferson refers to in the Declaration of Independence when he declared that government is instituted to secure our rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This is not the same as personal satisfactionindeed, public happiness requires citizens to subordinate their personal satisfaction to the public good (or, in ideal circumstances, to merge the two).

Because democracy both depended on and created this sort of public engagement, the Anti-Federalist model insisted that as many decisions as possible must be pushed out from the center to the states. Only in those smaller, more homogeneous communities, the Anti-Federalists argued, can individuals meaningfully participate in public debate, directly experience the benefits of legislating in the common good, and feel the ties of affection to fellow citizens that undergirds public happiness. (Note that though the Anti-Federalists were localists, they nevertheless were not tied to the classical model of the Greek city-state. They understood that modern life required greater scale.)

By contrast, the Federalists were far more skeptical about democracy leaning heavily on the virtue of the mass of citizens. "A dependence on the people," James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, "is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

The Federalists imagined democracy for a large, diverse and fractious America in which citizens engaged with the public interest only occasionally and more likely acted according to their grubby private interests than some noble conception of the public good. The Federalists aimed to fit democracy to these hostile conditions.

The key innovation, laid out in Federalist No. 10, was the view that Anti-Federalist localism was upside-down. Only a large, diverse republic, Madison said, could "break and control the power of faction," by which he meant a private or group interest inconsistent with the public good. First, in an extended republic, Madison wrote, it would simply be more difficult for a faction to gain enough leverage to dictate policy:

Madison acknowledged that scale was not a complete answer. Factional interest may gain majority support even in a large country. In that instance, the Federalists relied not upon the virtue of citizens, but of their representatives. Because representatives in a large republic are chosen by a larger and more diverse body of citizens, the results of elections, Madison wrote, "are more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters." Once in office, these men will act "to refine and enlarge the public views," blunting factional proposals "by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

So the Federalists relied heavily on deliberation by national elites. They downplayed citizen virtue in favor of elite virtue. The Anti-Federalists objected furiously. They saw the Federalists as centralizing power, removing virtue from politics, elevating representatives as a sort of aristocracy, and, ultimately, as setting loose the power of self-interest which inevitably, they feared, would usher in tyranny and corruption.

None of this is to deny that the Anti-Federalists had their blind spots; it's difficult to imagine that their program of localism and citizen virtue could possibly have worked in a country as large and individualistic as America. And yet in light of what we've all witnessed, who can say now that the Anti-Federalists didn't, in general, see the defects of the Federalist project more clearly than the Federalists who defeated them?

The Anti-Federalists feared that the national government would wax in power at the expense of the states. They were correct. They feared that future presidents would make claims to monarchical power. They were again correct. The Anti-Federalists feared that the legislature would become oligarchic. Today's United States Congress, comprised of a majority of millionaires, bears the Anti-Federalists out on this one, too.

The Anti-Federalists were perhaps most prescient, however, in predicting how the United States Supreme Court would become glutted with powerto the point where we risked, in the view of the Anti-Federalists, becoming a nation ruled by judges.

The Federalists believed the federal courts were, in Hamilton's words, the "least dangerous" branch. He argued in Federalist No. 78 that we had little to fear from courts, because they were powerless relative to the president and the Congress:

But the Anti-Federalists understood the likely role of the Supreme Courtthe only court established in the Constitutionvery differently. Those views are best summed up by the Anti-Federalist "Brutus," who, in the months prior to the Constitution's ratification, wrote a series of editorials in a New York newspaper detailing his fears that the Supreme Court would exercise essentially unreviewable power:

Unlike in England, Brutus wrote, where rulings are subject to correction by Parliament, under the proposed Constitution the courts are subject to no check:

And also unlike in England, where courts claim no power to set aside democratically-enacted laws, Brutus predicted that the Supreme Court would insert itself into lawmaking by striking down legislation:

And finally, Brutus predicted that the Constitution's vague text wouldn't constrain the Supreme Court's power, but rather further expand it. Most of the Constitution's articles, he wrote, and especially the most important ones, "are conceived in general and indefinite terms, which are either equivocal, ambiguous, or which require long definitions to unfold their meaning." The Supreme Court would feel little constraint from "any fixed or established rules, but would determine, according to what appears to them the reason and the spirit of the constitution." Brutus expected the Court would take every opportunity to expand its power to control the Constitution's meaning:

"This power in the judicial," Brutus concluded, "will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please."

Brutus's Anti-Federalist account of the Supreme Court has proven far more accurate than Hamilton's conviction that the Court would act with "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." The Anti-Federalists were correct in anticipating that the Constitution's oracular text would license the Supreme Court to make political judgments, cloaked (barely) in the language of law. They were correct in anticipating there would be no possibility of democratic recourse in most instanceseven where the Supreme Court exercised its great "latitude of interpretation" to issue deeply unpopular decrees. And the Anti-Federalists were prescient in predicting the Supreme Court would refuse to be constrained by "any fixed or established rules."

We saw an example of that when the court reversed course after decades of First Amendment Free Exercise precedent, introducing a new formula for deciding those casesone more favorable to claims that religious organizations should be exempt from generally-applicable laws and regulations. The court did so not in the context of a case on its regular docket, but in a "shadow docket" case decided outside the court's normal procedure and with minimal briefing and no oral argument. In so holding, the court broke its own rules, which bar changing the law in a shadow docket decision. But who is going to hold the court accountable? The Anti-Federalists knew. No one.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Federalists did not anticipate all the harm that would eventually be done by our imperial Supreme Court. Most importantly, they did not predict that a political party would attempt, as Republicans did under Donald Trump and will do again the next time a Republican occupies the White House, to harness the Supreme Court's overweening power for partisan political ends. Republicans have built their recent political strategy around stocking the federal bench with right-wing judges. And they've done this with a greater goal in mind. The party can effectively stay in power even if it can't win. The furious energy with which Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the Federalist Society worked to elevate partisan conservativesby far the most consequential achievement of Trump's presidencyis all about frustrating the ability of the Democrats to do much with power once they have it.

That said, the Anti-Federalists' lesson for us is that the problems with the Supreme Court are much deeper than the politics of the moment. It's not just that the justices are too conservative or too liberal. It's that they are too powerful. That is why the Americans need to be looking back to the Anti-Federalists for ideas about how to shrink the power of the Supreme Court. Recent proposals have focused mostly on shifting the Court's composition through court packing and the introduction of judicial term limits. But the Anti-Federalists would have wanted a deeper reform. One that is focused not on who sits on the court but on creating accountability for it.

There is such a mechanismone that the Federalists wrote into the Constitution itself but the implications of which the Anti-Federalists, unfortunately, failed to apprehend. Article III gives Congress power to strip jurisdiction: a power that can be employed to rein in politicized courts and even override judicial decisions, at least when courts are standing in the way of change that a substantial and enduring political coalition wants.

The implications of Article III power are potentially profound. Congress's power over courts' jurisdiction means that it can reclaim from an unaccountable Supreme Court authority to interpret the Constitution in particular cases. It would give us, in other words, some of the accountability that the Anti-Federalists warned we lacked.

See original here:

These key defects in the Constitution threaten democracy because we ignored the warnings - Raw Story

One of the teenagers who pled guilty to murdering an UberEats delivery driver is going to be able to walk free by her 21st birthday.

Claire Huber, a spokeswoman for the Washington D.C. Superior Court, said Tuesday the 15-year-old girl will be held in a juvenile facility until the age of 21, but might get out sooner if deemed rehabilitated. The D.C. Attorney Generals Office dropped other charges in exchange for her pleading guilty to felony murder.

The killing of Mohammed Anwar in a March 23 carjacking made national headlines upon its graphic footage being released. The 66-year-old Springfield, Va., resident died after the 15-year-old and a 13-year-old dragged him while taking the vehicle. The car flipped and Anwar went flying on the sidewalk. Anwar was assaulted with a Taser. The 13-year-old girl was likewise charged with felony murder, in addition to other crimes. A verdict has not been rendered.

Attorneys in the case are not permitted under law to comment publicly on the case since it is a juvenile matter. One of Anwars family members has said the family will not make a comment until the other teenagers verdict comes in. There is a hearing for May 19 scheduled for the 13-year-old. Sentencing will occur on June 4 for the 15-year-old.

Anwars family published a GoFundMe page shortly after the incident. As of writing, it has raised more than $1 million.

Mohammad Anwar was a hard-working Pakistani immigrant who came to the United States to create a better life for him and his family, the page description states in part. He was simply at work yesterday evening, providing for his family, when his life was tragically taken in an appalling act of violence.

Anwar was a beloved husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and friend who always provided a smile when you needed one, it continues. He leaves behind a family, near and far, who cherish, love, and miss him dearly. Words can not describe how our family is feeling currently. Devastation, confusion, shock, anger, heartache, and anguish are just a few that come to mind.

CNN referred to the murder as an accident, which caused an uproar on Twitter.

Go here to see the original:

Teenager Who Murdered An Uber Driver Will Be Out By 21, If Not Earlier - The Federalist

Do Republicans have an obsession with or a fixation on critical race theory? The Atlantics Adam Harris sure thinks so. He penned an article last week explaining this supposed obsession, making note of various GOP bills in state legislatures and Congress that would prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in public schools, or bar government contractors from training that promotes division between, resentment of, or social justice for groups based on race, sex, or political affiliation, as one bill passed by the Arkansas legislature put it.

For Republicans, wrote Harris, the end goal of all these bills is clear: initiating another battle in the culture wars and holding on to some threadbare mythology of the nation that has been challenged in recent years. The GOP, he adds, is fixated on nothing more than an academic approach.

But critical race theory isnt just an academic approach, and Republicans arent the ones who initiated this battle. Theyre responding rather mildly, given the stakes to an aggressive, long-term campaign on the left to ratchet up racial tension, divide Americans by race, and insert frankly racist ideas into every facet of public life as part of a larger strategy to gain and wield political power.

Even if you agree, as Harris seems to, with critical race theory gurus like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who teach that people should be treated differently based on their race, the sudden ubiquity of critical race theory and its accompanying jargon white privilege, racial equity, systemic racism isnt because GOP state lawmakers suddenly decided to make a fuss out of it. Its because left-wing ideologues decided to push it in the places most familiar to them: elite private schools and executive boardrooms.

Thats why private schools across the country are incorporating critical race theory into their curricula, ignoring the concerns of parents who oppose it on the grounds that its academicized racist garbage. Corporate America, Big Tech, and Hollywood are all explicitly pushing critical race theory, sometimes in rather ham-fisted and offensive ways. The U.S. Navys top brass even included Kendis book, How To Be An Antiracist, on its 2021 reading list (prompting Republican Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn, to introduce a bill last week to prohibit the teaching of critical race theory at U.S. military academies).

On the same day last week The Atlantic published Harriss explainer about GOP efforts to combat critical race theory, Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute published a trove of whistleblower documents related to the Walt Disney Corporations diversity and inclusion program, somewhat creepily called Reimagine Tomorrow.

The documents are, or should be, a scandal and an embarrassment to Disney because they lay bare a program that is openly racist despite being framed as a program about antiracism. In a training module called, Allyship for Race Consciousness, writes Rufo, Disney tells employees that they should reject equality, with a focus on equal treatment and access to opportunities, and instead strive for equity, with a focus on the equality of outcome.

Disney is also actively encouraging racial segregation among employees as part of its Orwellian-named diversity and inclusion program, with racially segregated affinity groups for minority employees, reports Rufo. Disney employees, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Rufo that these racial affinity groups are technically open to employees of all races but in practice have become almost entirely segregated by race, with the occasional exception for white executive champions who attend on behalf of corporate leadership.

In his Atlantic article, Harris describes Rufo as the person who bears the most responsibility for the surge in conservative interest in critical race theory. That may be so, but its not because Rufo is making this stuff up. Its actually happening, and writers like Harris are pretending that its healthy and necessary, not abjectly racist.

But does anyone outside corporate media and elite institutions believe that? When ordinary Americans read Kendis declaration that, The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination, do they buy it? Or is critical race theory something that appeals to a narrower and more privileged segment of society?

It appears so. A pair of academics at Yale University recently completed a study that tested the effectiveness of various types of messaging for a handful of left-wing policies, which is common enough research among political scientists. But these researchers, Josh Kalla and Micah English, framed the issues things like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All differently to see how it might change support for them.

For one group, they emphasized how the issues would benefit a certain racial group or promote racial equity. For another, they emphasized benefits for the working class. For a third group, they combined the race and class frames, and for the final group they didnt emphasize any benefits but just described the policies in neutral terms.

Journalist Zaid Jilani interviewed Kalla and English on their findings, and they told him that the class frame was more effective than either the race or the race plus class frames. After this summer, everyone wanted to believe that you know we had this great awakening that everyone now is aware of racial equity and we need to fix it, but I think our results suggest kind of the opposite, English told Jilani.

Whats more, they found that for black voters the race and class appeals were about equally effective. According to Jilani, there was only one group in the survey for whom the race appeal was most effective: white Democrats.

Why, wonders Jilani, are white Democrats so fixated on racial messaging? My guess is that the progressive movement is simply captured by an upper-class elite for whom anti-racism is now an all-dominating philosophy, he writes. It might not sway voters to frame every policy debate around race, but it probably does impress your social cohort.

In other words, it turns out Kendis core constituency is surprise! white readers of The Atlantic.

Continued here:

Republicans Aren't Obsessed With Race Theory, White Democrats Are - The Federalist

More than 100,000 fans packed Atlantas Truist Park this weekend for a three-game series between the Braves and the Philadelphia Phillies as the Georgia stadium returned the largest crowds since the start of the pandemic open at 100 percent capacity.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, nearly 40,000 fans nearly sold out the stadium both Friday and Saturday night, with nearly 30,000 in attendance Sunday.

Meanwhile, between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, more than 70,000 people broke the record of attendance for an indoor boxing match between Mexicos Canelo Alvarez and Billy Joe Saunders at AT&T Stadium. Masks were encouraged, but not required.

The previous record had stood at just more than 63,000 set in 1978 when Muhammed Ali beat Leon Spinks at the New Orleans Superdome.

On the same day boxing fans in Texas roared towards normalcy, Americas supposed parent on coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who runs the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said Americans might be as close to back to normal as we can for next years Mothers Day in another 12 months. The same doctor championed two weeks to slow the spread 14 months ago, though shortly after said the quiet part out loud, that under his purview, the world would never return to normal.

If back to normal means acting like there never was a coronavirus problem, I dont think thats going to happen, Fauci said at an April 2020 White House press briefing, until the arrival of a vaccine where you can completely protect the population.

Now that vaccines are here however, Fauci has only doubled-down on demands for lockdown, holding nothing to gain and everything to lose with the erasure of restrictions, and with it, the loss of his television role as the arbiter of science. On Sunday, Fauci encouraged mask-wearing to become a permanent fixture of American life.

Americans who remain in free states however, relieving themselves of Faucis partisan commentary have moved on while Fauci pretends millions of Americans outside the beltway dont live their lives in perpetual fear of the virus with vaccines available to those who want them.

Read the rest here:

Crowded Weekend Scenes Showcase A Nation Moving On From Dr. Fauci - The Federalist