Daily Archives: March 8, 2022

Wisconsins Supreme Court adopted Gov. Tony Evers congressional and legislative redistricting maps on Thursday in what looks, on the surface, like a big win for Democrats. What the news headlines wont tell you, though, is how conservatives largely won the redistricting battle before it began.

The 4-3 decision, which prompted a hell yes from Evers and featured the courts conservative swing vote Brian Hagedorn siding with the benchs liberal judges, doesnt appear to be a win for the right. Yet the devils in the details.

Redistricting is a process predictably fraught with intense bickering as the parties each seek to advantage themselves politically with maximum congressional apportionment. But in Wisconsin, while Evers and Republican legislators were fighting over the maps, one proactive group was quietly devising a legal strategy to box out activist federal judges from manipulating the redistricting process when it inevitably reached the courts.

From restricting which court could hear the case to limiting what factors judges would be allowed to consider in their decision, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty successfully set the rules of the game so progressive jurists couldnt unconstitutionally hijack the process from the states and become the social justice cartographers of district maps and it worked.

Since Wisconsin is a battleground swing state, this situation is more than a small legal victory for constitutional loyalists. Its also a pattern for other states to follow as they try to prevent the type of left-wing election overhaul that occurred in the 2020 election from happening in congressional and state legislative races.

It all began with recognizing that this cycles redistricting fight would ultimately occur in the courts because there was virtually no chance Evers would sign into law a district map passed by the GOP-controlled legislature. In recent memory, these redistricting impasses get resolved in federal court.

Hearkening back to a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision from 2002, WILL insisted that based on the Constitution, redistricting is a process that belongs to the states, meaning a battle over map-drawing should be resolved by the state Supreme Court, not by some federal court. To that end, WILL attorneys filed a rules petition in June of 2020, but the Supreme Court denied it.

The conservative legal group was undeterred, however, because the results of the 2020 Census were on the horizon. After these numbers came out in mid-August 2021, WILL was teed up to file an original action with the state Supreme Court the very next week, representing plaintiffs from areas of the state where, according to the new population totals, the maps were malapportioned. And this time, the Supreme Court the same one that said 20 years ago that these matters do belong to the state agreed to take it.

At the same time, there was a similar case already moving through federal court. It was filed on behalf of Democrat plaintiffs represented by Marc Elias of Russia collusion hoax infamy, who alleged that their legislative and congressional districts were unconstitutionally malapportioned according to the census numbers.

So WILL intervened in the federal case on Sept. 16, telling that court that the conservative legal group had filed in the state court and that the federal court should defer to that action.

On Oct. 6, the federal court stayed the case, saying it would defer to the state court but only for so long. The redistricting issue must be addressed, it said, so if the state court didnt act fast enough, the federal court would have to. The federal court agreed, however, that since redistricting is a state issue, it should be resolved in state court. That was victory No. 1.

Meanwhile, while the Wisconsin Supreme Court was prepared to step aside in the highly unlikely event that Evers and Republican lawmakers were able to agree to a map, it began moving forward and to the surprise of no one, Evers vetoed Republicans map on Nov. 18.

In October and November, it asked for merits briefing regarding things like how quickly it had to act and what legal principles governed the drawing of maps so WILL told the court exactly what it should do.

WILLs brief centered on two main principles. First, it said the court shouldnt consider partisan factors when deciding maps.

Our objectives we wanted the case to be in state court but we also wanted the court to say that we are not going to take into account the expected partisan outcome of these maps because its not our job, WILL President and General Counsel Rick Esenberg told The Federalist. We arent going to make up for the natural disadvantage that Democratic candidate might have. Were just not going to take that into account at all.

Second and along the same lines, it said the court should adopt a least changes approach, whereby the judges would use the last legal district map in this case, the map from 2011 and change it at little as possible to make it constitutional under new population totals.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and adopted these principles, which now have the power of precedent, on Nov. 30. Then in December, it accepted eight proposed maps and briefs from lawmakers and advocacy groups, heard oral arguments over their merits in January, and issued its decision this week.

While Republicans are rightly frustrated that the conservative-majority court chose Evers map, its important to understand how hampered the Democrat governor was by the court implementing the least changes principle. The operative map from 2011 was passed by a GOP-controlled legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican.

Therefore because of WILLs proactive strategy and thus the court setting the least changes rules, Evers couldnt even try submitting the type of gerrymandered map he would have preferred to the court, or it would have been dead on arrival. He was forced to go back to the drawing board and adhere closely to the 2011 map.

Evers won! read the headlines but how did he win? By drawing maps that had the fewest changes from Republican maps. Not exactly the Democrat victory Evers would like you to think.

While it depends on differences between state constitutions and whether other state courts are receptive to the arguments WILL made in Wisconsin, Esenberg said this strategy is possible for other states to employ.

And after the rigging of the 2020 election through Mark Zuckerberg infiltrating government elections offices, election commissions ignoring rules or illegally changing them, and corrupt Big Tech and the corporate press suppressing crucial information its not only possible for states to get ahead of redistricting in the courts. Its crucial.

If youre gerrymandering every legislative district to make them as close as you possibly can, then that increases the chance that a wrongdoer will be able to flip an election through improper means, Esenberg said. It would just be easier to do it.

If states want to avoid some of the disasters of the 2020 election and prevent leftists from making constitutional redistricting decisions a matter of equity, they must be proactive and recognize that not all victories have an R next to them. Wins like WILLs in Wisconsin are a product of playing offense, not defense.

Original post:

How Conservatives Won Wisconsin's Redistricting Battle Before It Began - The Federalist

The world is captivated by Ukraines resistance to Russian invasion, especially since much of Ukraines resistance comes from ordinary citizens taking up arms in defense of their homeland.

Ukraine has a fighting chance in part because it has taken dramatic steps to provide its people firearms. More than 25,000 automatic rifles and 10 million rounds of ammunition have been distributed to volunteers in Kyiv.

In the United States, even supporters of draconian gun control are announcing they stand with the brave Ukrainian people in their armed resistance. The glaring contradiction between these positions supporting gun confiscation one day and gun distribution the next seemingly hasnt dawned on many of these ideologues.

Their contradiction is apparent in actions, as well as in words. President Joe Bidens rush to arm Ukrainians stands in contrast with his desire to disarm ordinary Americans.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is another prime example: engaging in tyrannical gun control at home while supplying the Ukrainian resistance with machine guns, pistols, carbines, and 1.5 million rounds of ammunition. The European Union shows a similar hostility to the self-defense rights of its people, even as it gives Ukraine about half a billion dollars worth of lethal aid.

Arming average citizens hasnt always been the Ukrainian way, either. A 2014 report noted that the country had inherited the Soviet civilian gun control system, which provides for restrictive gun owner licensing and the registration of all firearms. According to that report, Ukraine initially considered imposing comprehensive gun laws during the 1990s. But politicians gridlocked over whether or not private [gun] ownership would increase crime or improve security.

Hopefully the events of 2022 have settled that question once and for all. An individuals natural right of self-defense applies equally to the defense of his life as to the defense of his nation and neither individual nor nation is secure without the ability to exercise it. This should never have been a question.

As it happened, Ukraine was tragically late to expand legal protection of gun rights. Its parliament acted on an emergency basis just before Russia invaded.

Better late than never, certainly. But imagine if the people of Kyiv had been training with these weapons their whole lives. Imagine if they knew them like the back of their hands, instead of quickly learning to handle them during an invasion. Their resistance, as well as their example to the world, would be all the more powerful.

Its also unfortunate that Ukraines government has left some significant restrictions on the self-defense rights of the Ukrainian people, and has only codified these rights in a statute rather than giving them full constitutional protection. In reality, the right to bear arms in public and private is a natural right that the Ukrainian people need no government permission to exercise. They just need the government to stay out of the way of their natural rights.

But in a time even many U.S. jurisdictions violate that natural right, its not surprising if other countries are confused about it.

Ukraine is certainly moving in the right direction on gun rights, something that cant be said of the entire United States. The chairman of Ukraines parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk, says the new law is meant to ensure that every citizen receives the sacred right to self-defense.

The people of Ukraine have a chance because they are armed. Its a lesson the world should never forget.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is the Director of Mountain States Legal Foundations Center to Keep and Bear Arms. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues but is happy so long as he is reminding the government of its enumerated powers and constitutional restrictions.

Go here to read the rest:

Ukraine Shows The World Why Gun Rights Are Human Rights - The Federalist

It would appear that leftists dont actually like a lot of the radical policies they have been advocating for since the beginning of the lockdowns and the death of George Floyd in spring 2020. From homelessness to crime to Covid policies, the left is backtracking on much of its platform in the face of disastrous results and frustration from rank-and-file liberals. Recent developments in our nations capital provide some of the most dramatic examples.

Cities across the country are taking a more aggressive stance on homeless encampments in response to residents complaints, including Washington, D.C. An early February poll conducted by The Washington Post found that three-fourths of Washingtonians support the districts plan to clear the camps of homeless persons that now proliferate across the city.

That the American Civil Liberties Union and even some D.C. council members oppose Mayor Muriel E. Bowsers cleanups have not stopped their enforcement. Bowser has quite a mandate for this: the number of city residents who want these camps cleared does not substantially change based on respondents race, and is above 70 percent for white, black, Hispanic, and Asian residents.

That the district is pursuing this policy with substantial local support is a bit ironic, given that so many prominent leftist organizations, local leftist leaders, and Democratic politicians have been trying for more than a year to protect these encampments. This included Ann Marie Staudenmaier, wife of Maryland gubernatorial candidate Tom Perez, who last year advocated for homeless camps in the district to be permitted and protected. Dont evict them from the only place that they have to call home, she urged.

Perhaps it has something to do with how large numbers of homeless persons affect the cleanliness, security, and attraction of neighborhoods. A separate recent WaPo article cited residents who noted homeless persons in the camp have harassed them. One D.C. resident said downtown is not pleasant and that the ubiquity of the encampments threatens the security of local residents.

Although many on the left would likely grimace to say it, national trends on curbing these camps indicate a significant percentage of the rest of America feels the same way.

Mayors of Americas largest cities, once responsive to calls to defund the police, have done a dramatic reversal in response to local frustration with higher crime rates. Now refund the police has become the cry of many liberal residents.

In D.C., residents opinions on crime and police have experienced this shift, given increased crime and murder rates in the city since 2020. According to a recent WaPo poll, a sizable majority (59 percent) now agree that increasing the number of police officers patrolling communities would reduce the amount of violent crime in D.C.

The share of Washingtonians who say they are not safe from crime has risen to 30 percent this year from 22 percent in November 2019 and is the highest in more than two decades of Post polls, reports the WaPo.

This is quite a change from the defund the police initiatives city residents and various activist groups so loudly endorsed after the death of George Floyd. The D.C. government in 2020 supported measures in June 2022 to cut $15 million from the police department budget. At the time, the police chief warned this could lead to the loss of hundreds of officers and that underfunding training and equipment might result in officers using more excessive force.

Thankfully, D.C. is not alone in wanting to refund the police. As NBC reported in February, Democratic politicians are calling the defund the police movement dead and mayors in San Francisco, New York, and Chicago are moving to increase police budgets and end the reign of criminals.

Democratic states are also ending many Covid restrictions in the face of rising complaints from their constituents. Consider D.C. Mayor Bowsers mid-February announcement that she would lift the citys vaccine requirement for businesses and dial back the citys indoor mask rules. This announcement followed a number of states including many governed by Democrats that have also eased their restrictions as polls come back showing their rising unpopularity. Now D.C.s party scene is returning to normal, reports the WaPo, even though coronavirus case counts in and around Washington remain high.

This is a remarkable and speedy shift, especially considering D.C. had some of the most strict Covid restrictions in the country. Perhaps the Districts dramatic about-face has something to do with widespread annoyance with pandemic restrictions, even among liberal voters. Perhaps it results from the rising tide of Democratic politicians listening to their constituencies despite public health guidance claiming the country is moving too fast in loosening the rules.

Perhaps all of these changes also relate to the fact that the District of Columbia is no longer experiencing the population boom and gentrification that have defined the last couple of decades. The capitals population declined by 2.9 percent from 2020 to 2021, according to the Census Bureau. Living in an increasingly dangerous, filthy nanny-city is apparently not that appealing, even to the Districts majority leftist population. This has been part of a broader national trend as people across the nation in 2021 left Democratic-run states.

To borrow a phrase from the late Irving Kristol, D.C. residents (and liberals across the country) have been mugged by reality and in some cases actually mugged. Perhaps living in a lefty utopia where the homeless camp wherever they like, undisturbed by a defunded police force, with fickle and irrational health-related restrictions isnt all that its cracked up to be.

Democrat D.C. residents, like the rest of Americans, dont actually like their public spaces overrun by homeless persons, their neighborhoods suffering increased violent crime rates, or their cities stuck in a cycle of never-ending draconian public safety regulations.

What this all means is that, thankfully, certain activist narratives that threatened all Americans have lost considerable steam. It also means these policies are likely political liabilities in upcoming elections. Perhaps it also shows there are certain things that all Americans can still agree on.

Casey Chalk is a senior contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelors in history and masters in teaching from the University of Virginia and a masters in theology from Christendom College. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands.

Continued here:

Facing The Results Of Their Ideas, Leftists Are Backpedaling Like Mad - The Federalist

A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Donald Trump were still in the Oval Office. As former senior intelligence officials under President Trump, we agree with that view.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 when George W. Bush was president. Russia took Crimea in 2014 when Barack Obama was president. Russia has now invaded Ukraine with Joe Biden as president. However, when Donald Trump was president, Russia did not seize territory from any of its neighbors.

During his four years in office, Trump not only successfully deterred Russia from acting against Ukraine, he effectively deterred a lot of bad behavior across the planet. He focused on ending Americas foreign wars rather than launching new ones. At the same time, he brokered the Abraham Accords to expand peace in the Middle East.

The exercise of American power to deter adversaries is a complicated business. It involves a mix of military, economic, political, and diplomatic strategies and actions that together communicate the costs of threatening U.S. national interests.

Ultimately, the art of statecraft boils down to whether a president projects American strength that deters adversaries, or projects American weakness that emboldens our adversaries.

So how did Trump succeed in containing Putin while the Russian autocrat has run wild with others in the White House? Why was he so successful at spreading peace elsewhere? We believe the long answer begins with these ten ways that Donald Trump projected American strength and kept the bad guys in check:

Each of these points are worthy of unpacking in-depth, but there are several that illustrate the dramatic difference in approach between Trump and Biden, starting with Afghanistan.

When President Trump initiated the process of ending Americas longest war, senior officials huddled in the Situation Room to discuss tactical challenges on the ground. The president reminded the group of Americas humiliating withdrawal from Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War, and said we must do whatever it takes to leave in a safe, orderly, and dignified way. When military leaders bemoaned the costs and logistical challenges of bringing home our equipment, the president said that he did not care if it was a helicopter or a styrofoam cooler. If it had an American flag on it, it was either coming home or getting destroyed to keep it from falling into the hands of our enemies. He vowed that we would leave on our terms, or we would not leave at all.

Tragically, President Bidens approach which included the decision to abandon the strategically important Bagram Air Base prior to the evacuation cost the lives of 13 American servicemembers and led to the Taliban parading victoriously through Kabul with billions of dollars of American combat equipment. The administrations stunning incompetence detailed in an official U.S. Army report made the United States look weak and vulnerable on the world stage, and Putin was watching.

The world took notice when Trump ordered the killing of Iranian terrorist general Qassem Soleimani, who had operated with impunity throughout the Middle East until the U.S. military sent two Hellfire missiles through his vehicle. As a candidate for president, Biden released a statement condemning the righteous attack as a hugely escalatory move that brought us to the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East. This, of course, proved to not be the case, but it illustrated Bidens unwillingness to do what it takes to establish credible deterrence.

This principle of deterrence applies across the globe, which explains why the Chinese military has sent a record number of airplanes into Taiwans air defense identification zone since Biden took office.

To the specific case at hand, Trump was much tougher on Russia than the media have led people to believe, while Biden has been far softer.

Trump deployed such aggressive sanctions against Russia that President Obamas Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called them the toughest in history, and he withdrew from one-sided treaties that hamstrung the U.S. while Russia violated the terms.

Biden has taken the opposite approach, appeasing Putin by handing him his top two geopolitical priorities on a silver platter. He unconditionally extended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, allowing Russia to continue building tactical nuclear weapons while constraining our ability to modernize. And while Trump imposed sanctions to stop Russias Nord Stream 2 pipeline in its tracks, construction was allowed to resume when Biden took office.

President Trump understood the power of building American energy dominance. By slashing onerous regulations, Trump sparked an American energy boom that ensured we would never be reliant on any other nation to meet our energy needs. Geopolitically, Americas increased export capacity reduced Putins leverage over our European allies, who depend on Russia for 40 percent of their gas and more than a quarter of their oil.

Trump approved the Keystone XL oil pipeline at home and shut down Russias Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Eastern Europe. Biden reversed both decisions, meaning he has been harder on Americas energy producers than he has been on Russias. To add insult to injury, as the Russian army pushed into Ukraine, Bidens climate envoy John Kerry hoped aloud that President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate.

Vladimir Putins appetite for expansion did not wane during the four years Trump was in office, and the world was not just miraculously a safer place. Bad actors like Putin simply knew that they had to restrain themselves or deal with the consequences. In nearly every way possible, President Biden has weakened the United States and our allies and empowered Putin. As a result, Russia is on the march, even as the Ukrainian people have inspired the world with their courage and resilience. And in the wings, Americas greatest threat Xi Jinpings China waits, and watches.

John Ratcliffe served as the 6th U.S. Director of National Intelligence. Cliff Sims served as U.S. Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Strategy and Communications.

Read more from the original source:

Fear Of Donald Trump Kept Putin From Invading Ukraine. Here's How Trump Pulled It Off - The Federalist

The corporate media and U.S. politicians didnt miss a beat jumping from the drawn-out Covid panic of the past two years to panicking about impending war with Russia over Ukraine. But while media distracts with war in Europe, Democrats from the White House to American cities have been quietly adopting the common-sense Covid policies that conservatives have championed this whole time, and which the Covid panic cabal shamed and censored us for ad nauseam. They dont deserve to get away without a massive we told you so.

After blaming Covid on the unvaccinated and threatening them with a winter of severe illness and death, Biden used his State of the Union address Tuesday night to pretend it wasnt himself and his fellow Democrats making Covid a partisan issue all along. Lets stop seeing each other as enemies,and start seeing each other for who we really are:Fellow Americans, he said.

He also invoked the opening of schools and businesses, a position many conservatives have held for at least a year and a half. Tonight I can say we are moving forward safely, back to more normal routines, said the president, two years into ruined businesses, schooling, and other consequences.

Bidens hogwash speech came just days after his Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conveniently updated their guidelines. The new guidelines suggest that 70 percent of Americans can now stop wearing masks, and no longer need to social distance or avoid crowded indoor spaces, reported The New York Times, noting the new rules only recommend masking in high-risk areas, and would allow eased restrictions in most schools. The Capitol physician also abandoned Capitol Hills mask mandate just in time for Bidens speech.

Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser let her vaccine mandate for indoor venues expire mid-February, and the indoor mask mandate expired on Tuesday. While students are no longer required to wear masks outside at school, the classroom mask mandate remains.

The mayor of New York City on Sunday announced plans to lift school mask mandates and the vaccine mandate for restaurants, gyms, and entertainment venues. By the next day, California, Oregon, and Washington all announced they were relaxing mask mandates in schools and other indoor settings. This all comes right after Bidens polling firm Impact Research advised Democrats to take the win on Covid or risk paying dearly for it in November.

Im all for letting the poor constituents of blue state autocrats breathe again, but this is not a win critics of lockdowns should accept quietly. These are the same people who spent the greater part of two years demonizing everyone who championed the very policies theyre now adopting.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was an especial target of the Covid panic police, as he spearheaded policies that reopened the economy and pushed back against mask and vaccine mandates. CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, and other outlets spun sob and scare stories making the governor out to be a child-killing villain.

Joy Reid called DeSantis a maniac and claimed she was in horrified disbelief that any Florida governor would condemn his own states citizens to sickness and death, purely for his own political ambition. Six months later, she had no criticism for governors of her own political stripe following suit.

Charles Blow of The New York Times unsatirically wrote that there have been multiple peaks in the G.O.P.s utter disregard for public safety even the safety of their own supporters, adding, It isnt a single mountain but a range. The death dealing of Covid amounts to the Appalachians of ignorance.

Its not just conservative political leaders theyve villainized and blamed. Youve probably encountered dirty stares or worse too for just trying to get your life back to normal. Maybe your kids have been ostracized or denied entry to school for refusing to comply with mask theater. Or maybe youve lost your job for wanting medical autonomy over your own body, or know someone who did.

Suddenly, the same people who derided you as selfish, anti-science rubes are trying to sheepishly align with what youve said all along. To top it off, theyre trying to claim that as a win.

It might be one thing if Covid restrictions actually worked (they dont), and Covid numbers were at their sky-highest when Republicans championed freedom-minded policies and had actually dropped off to minuscule levels now (not what happened either). But a quick look at the numbers will show that hasnt been the case.

There were fewer than 100,000 average new daily Covid cases (96,138) when Blow wrote his Appalachians of ignorance line in August 2021. That number was 60,335 in October 2020 when Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf posted his tweet lambasting Republicans for their irresponsible lack of concern.

When the CDC posted its updated guidance this past Friday, the new daily average was 68,661. (Its also worth considering that fewer people are probably getting tested now, as Covid panic subsides.) Less than two months ago, the nation hit its all-time high for new Covid cases, over 800,000 every day, dwarfing any previous numbers. Yet, on the heels of that spike, Democrats are declaring that Covid is more over than it ever was when some Republicans tried to ease restrictions.

Youll hear them claim that transmission risk levels are lower now, per the CDC. Funny enough, the CDC has changed its parameters for what qualifies as low, moderate, and high community transmission levels.

The agency used to count 0-9 new cases per 100,000 people in the past seven days as low, 10-49 new cases as moderate, 50-99 as substantial, and 100 or more as high. But new guidance released in the past week suddenly considers anything less than 200 new cases per 100,000 twice the previous threshold for the high risk category as low risk, provided hospital admissions and the number of beds occupied by Covid patients are below a certain number.

So suddenly, places that would have been labeled high risk a month ago can suddenly be lumped into the low risk category. Meanwhile, the Democrats declare victory over Covid.

Dont let them do it not until they admit it was their power-hungry policies that drove young people to suicide, damaged kids learning, stole jobs, left patients dying in facilities without their family members present, and pitted Americans against their neighbors. Theyre two years too late in adopting the policies they berated us for, and they dont deserve to get away with it.

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

Read the original post:

Democrats Adopt The Covid Policies They Insisted Would Kill Grandmas - The Federalist

Disney has announced that six Marvel TV series including Daredevil and The Defenders all rated TV-MA for extreme violence and explicit content will land on streaming service Disney Plus on March 16. Many fans are excited by the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is uniting on one platform, while some leading family entertainment advocates question the move.

Years before Disneys own streaming plans took shape, in 2015 their Marvel division partnered with Netflix to take a group of lesser-known, street-level heroes (the Defenders) from past comics and produce shows for adult viewers that push the boundaries of superhero TV.

Their first entry, Daredevil, about a lawyer-turned-vigilante whose Catholic faith motivates his quest for justice, in particular gained a loyal following over three seasons.

Its smart, sophisticated, and delivers big-screen action on a small screen, said Christian Toto, founder of the entertainment website Hollywood in Toto and author of Virtue Bombs: How Hollywood Got Woke and Lost Its Soul. Daredevil is one of the MCUs more complex heroes, and that makes for compelling content. Seeing these shows shift to Disney Plus is a marketing coup.

Yet Melissa Henson, program director at the Parents Television and Media Council (PTC) based in Hollywood, called it off-brand for these edgy series to make the leap from Netflix to Disney Plus.

Its certainly counter to how most parents perceive Disney Plus, she said in an interview. Out of the gate, Disney Plus branded itself as: Everything on here, you can be comfortable sitting down and watching these shows and films with your kids.

Signaling their change in brand identity, Disneys press release about The Defenders notes subscribers will have to opt in to these new titles. Still, for families with young kids at home, the move presents new challenges to navigate.

Michael Foust, an entertainment writer for Crosswalk, has sampled all the top streaming services and become an expert on the best options for families. Raising four kids in rural Illinois, he and his wife seek to guard their kids from explicit content as they enjoy a weekly family movie night.

No streaming service should be used as a babysitter, he and parents advocates are quick to note. But with a trusted family brand like Disney, parents dont constantly worry about kids stumbling upon something that conflicts with your values, Foust said in an interview.

That changed for him recently, after his nine-year-old watched a promoted show without a parents permission. We actually deleted Disney Plus off of our Roku (TV device) for several weeks, he said, preferring not to disclose the specific adult animation title. We have Disney Plus back now, but with parental controls on. I think thats a lesson for every parent.

These conflicts arise from confusion about genres, he says. The problem is kids automatically believe animated shows and superhero films are kid-friendly. Companies like McDonalds are partly to blame for that. One of my boys, four years old at the time, got a Happy Meal and started playing with toys promoting Avengers: Endgame. We wouldnt let him see that.

Marvel has become a cornerstone of Disneys streaming strategy, which is why in late 2018 Netflixs Daredevil and companion series were abruptly canceled as Disney began a process of pulling Marvel content from other platforms. Last year, Disney Plus premiered five original Marvel series. All were rated either TV-PG or TV-14, usually featuring bloodless battles rather than the brutal decapitations and grisly violence seen on Marvel Netflix shows.

Rolling out this slate of TV-MA series signals a sea-change, bringing Disney Plus closer to Netflix. These shows really increase the violence, along with adding innuendo and sexual content, says Henson. This is a dramatic departure. Its puzzling why these edgy shows arent heading to Hulu instead, which is known for adult-targeted content.

For some observers, its a welcome shift. From R-rated Joker to Prime Videos The Boys, a years-long trend of hyper-violent comic adaptations has rejected formulaic storytelling.

Toto praises Daredevil as a gritty show for grown-ups, no doubt. He adds: It also has a real-world feel that some MCU shows lack. Like the Dark Knight trilogy, you can imagine Daredevil existing in our current times.

Considering Disney Plus has lagged behind streaming competitors in building up its library, the sudden influx of series makes sense. Families seeking a show within existing Marvel rating boundaries some coarse language and non-gory violence in TV-14 territory at worst should note theyre also adding ABC drama Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on March 16.

Although known as critics, Parents Television and Media Council has often praised Disney Plus as mostly family-friendly, according to Henson. Theyve created a lot of original shows in the Star Wars franchise, from The Mandalorian to animated titles, that are really on-brand. I think it would be a mistake for them to depart from what has drawn many people to their streamer.

For others, it was a foregone conclusion that Disney Plus would eventually be home to all Marvel titles. Despite the explicit nature of The Defenders shows, Toto says, It adds gravitas to what Disney is trying to build with their platform.

Justifying explicit content in superhero stories, Toto points to X-Men spin-off Logan, with its themes of pain and redemption. It proved an R-rating wasnt just about more blood being spilled but mature themes that arent always suitable for young minds, he said. The comic book world is vast and layered, leaving room for many different, and valuable, interpretations.

To redraw content boundaries on a platform trusted in households with young kids, Foust says it gives parents an assignment. We have a couple of weeks to learn and then use parental controls, which he and Henson say are fairly adequate on Disney Plus.

This move creates a dilemma of having to more closely monitor Disney Plus, he said. Similar to Netflix, Disney is becoming more of an antagonist than an ally. Maybe they always were.

Josh Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy for several media outlets including The Stream. His articles have appeared in Christianity Today, Religion & Politics, Faithfully Magazine, Religion News Service, and Providence Magazine. A graduate of the University of Colorado, he previously worked on staff at The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family. Josh and his wife live in the Washington, D.C. area with their two children.

View original post here:

Disney Plus Will Soon Feature Marvel Series With Explicit Content. Parents Beware - The Federalist

How did we just kill a billion people?

Over just three days, as I have done countless times over the last several years, a group of past and present senior U.S. government officials from both sides of the aisle gathered to wage a NATO-Russia war in a simulation at the end of 2019. In the course of what we called the NATO-Russia War of 2019, we estimated one billion people died. And if we arent careful, what happened in a simulation could happen if a NATO-Russia war erupts over Ukraine.

In fact, in the simulation I mentioned above from 2019, in which Russia invades Ukraine in a similar way as it did over the last week or so, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia eventually releases nuclear weapons in its desperation. The result is an eventual escalation of bigger and more dangerous nuclear weapons whereby over one billion lives are lost.

But before we start staring into the abyss, allow me to explain the goal of such simulations. NATO clearly would have a massive conventional advantage in any war with Moscow, ensuring that in a straight-up fight Putin would lose. However, Russia has stated time and time again it will use nuclear weapons to defend its territory and its regime if it feels mortally threatened. Our simulation always seems to ask: Can we ever defeat Russian President Vladamir Putin in an armed conflict over Ukraine or the Baltics and not start a nuclear war in the process?

So far, over at least several years, and with at least 100 different participants that all held different ideas about war and political allegiances, the answer is a flat out no.

The scenario the group decided to test back in late 2019 was similar to today: Russia decided to invade Ukraine under the excuse that it is must defend Russian-speaking peoples that are being oppressed by Ukraines fascist government. In our scenario, we assumed Russia performs far more admirably than it does today but has more limited objectives, in that Moscow wants to connect Crimea to separatist regions in Eastern Ukraine that are under its effective control. We assumed that Russia does that quickly, achieving most of its military objectives in roughly four days.

But Ukraine does not give up so easily, just like in real life today. Ukrainian forces, after taking heavy losses, mount an impressive counterattack, whereby Russia loses over 100 tanks and over 2,500 soldiers. Images on social media show Russian armor ablaze, eliteSu-35 fighter jetsare shut down from the skies, and arms are now flowing in from the West in massive numbers.

Putin is outraged. He thought Ukraine would simply roll over, but he does not factor into his calculus the nearly decades-long training Kyiv received from the U.S. and NATO nor Ukraines military build-up for the last several years that was focused on this scenario.

Russia then decides that its limited military objectives were a mistake, and that all of Ukraine must be demilitarized. Moscow then launches a massive ballistic and cruise missile strike followed up by Russias air force launching its own shock and awe campaign, destroying a vast majority of Ukraines command and control structure, air force, air defense, and armored units in the process. At the same time, Russia starts surging troops to the borders of Ukraine in what looks like an imminent general invasion and occupation of the entire country.

Here is where things take a turn for the worst. A Russian ballistic missiles guidance system fails and crash-lands into NATO member Poland, killing 34 civilians as it tragically lands into a populated village along the Polish-Ukraine border. While the missile was not directed at Poland intentionally, pictures on social media show children crying for their mothers and bodies left unrecognizable, and demands for justice and revenge mount.

To its credit, Poland, which has its own tortured history with the Soviet Union and Russia, does its best to show restraint. While not responding with its own military, it leads an effort to see that Moscow pays a steep price for its aggression in Ukraine and actions, even unintentional, in Poland. Warsaw leads a diplomatic and economic boycott of Moscow resulting in Russia being kicked out of SWIFT as well as direct sanctions on Russian banks, similar to what we are seeing today.

In our scenario, Russias reaction is also swift. Moscow decides to launch a massive cyber attack on Poland, having based cyber warriors all throughout NATO territory, using their geography and proxy servers to mask the origin of the attack. Russia, in just two hours, takes off-line Polands entire electrical grid, banking sector, energy plants, and more essentially taking Poland back to the stone age.

And this is where the nightmare begins. Even though attribution is hard to achieve, Poland appeals to NATO and starts to privately share its desire to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring that an attack on one is an attack on the entire alliance. NATO is worried, as there is debate on how far to punish Russia while also feeling as if they do not have a clear military objective amongst the member states as some want to respond to what happened to Poland while others feel they must intervene militarily in Ukraine.

Here is where NATO surprises everyone. The alliance decides to set up a limited no-fly zone around the Ukrainian city of Lviv to protect innocent civilians and refugees that are trapped and have nowhere to go. Russia is warned: NATO is not intervening in the conflict, but will ensure that its planes and the airspace around Lviv are protected. NATO does make clear its jets will be in the skies above Ukraine, but will not operate from Ukrainian territory.

In Moscow, Putin now gets a sense that NATO is destined to intervene on Ukraines side. Russia fears NATO will use this protected corridor as a base of operations to send ever more sophisticated weapons. And with its economy now in a tailspin due to sanctions, Putin feels the walls closing in him. Before NATO can impose its no-fly zone, Putin orders strikes on any remaining airfields and military assets around Lviv.

But here is where Putin miscalculates and sets the stage for a NATO-Russia war. Putin orders another massive cyber attack on the Baltic states military infrastructure, thinking that NATO will use the Baltics to stage an invasion of Russia.

This ends up being the last straw for NATO, which then decides direct intervention in Ukraine is necessary to push back against Russian aggression. Before even an announcement is made, Russian intelligence sees missile and troop movements that indicate an impending NATO attack and decide to strike first with tactical nuclear weapons. NATO decides to respond in kind.

Russia then targets European cities with nuclear weapons, with NATO and America also responding in kind. What is left is nothing short of an apocalypse, with what we estimate is billion people dead.

In every scenario I have been a part of there is one common theme to all of them: When Vladimir Putin feels boxed in and feels Russia is directly threatened, usually from a mistake he makes on the battlefield, he decides to use whatever escalatory step he desires to try and make up for it.

While we may well soon see Ukraine and Russia find a diplomatic path out of this brutal war, both sides seem dug in. That means the chances for escalation like the above are high. And if Russia and NATO do become involved in direct conflict, Putin knows that in a conventional fight his regime would be defeated. That means Russia will choose nuclear war.

The only question in a NATO-Russia war seems obvious: how many millions or billions of people would die?

Harry J. Kazianis is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC and executive editor of their publishing arm, The National Interest. The views expressed in this article are his own. He's on Twitter @grecianformula.

Continued here:

NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here's How - The Federalist

Listening to news reports on Russias war on Ukraine, whether hard news or punditry, can be depressing endless images of urban destruction and reports of advancing Russian forces.

Yet, it is not foreordained that Russia wins and Ukraine loses. Winning a war is not merely an exercise in numbers or technology. As General George S. Patton observed, Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to quickly topple the Ukrainian government and kill President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the war has widened into a contest involving almost the entire border region shared by the combatants along with the stretch of border between Belarus and Kyiv some 80 miles to the north of Ukraines capital city.

Much media attention has been given to Russias advances along the Sea of Azov in the south and on the approach to Ukraines third-largest city, Odessa, on the shores of the Black Sea as well as the remarkable attack that captured Europes largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. These Russian successes are discouraging for Ukrainian defenders but, in the grand contest, they matter far less than the battle for Kyiv.

In the Eighteenth Century, Frederick the Great, noted: He who defends everything, defends nothing. In this context, Ukraines task is simple not easy but simple. It must keep a viable government, preferably in the capital city of Kyiv. To do that, Ukraine must maintain its supply lines to Poland in the west with the city of Lviv being the key transportation hub in the west. As long as Kyiv, Lviv, and the roads between them remain in Ukrainian hands, the fight can continue. As long as the fight continues, the economic pressure of Russia mounts, making it increasingly difficult to sustain both the fight and Putins hold on power. Thus, losses in the south are regrettable, but they are not fatal to Ukraines cause.

In that regard, there are fascinating signs coming out of what may be a decisive battle to the northwest of Kyiv on the long, winding, secondary road from Chernobyl. This is the road where a 40-mile-long column of Russian vehicles was spotted by satellite. Most of the vehicles are supply trucks. They would be carrying fuel, ammunition, and food for the Russian forces that have advanced to the very outskirts of Kyiv itself but have seemingly been stalled for several days.

One attribute of a good intelligence officer is the ability to feel the battle. To pick up clues from the chaos of combat the pace of events and where they happen, as well as odd silences, all mean something. Creating a coherent picture from the violence can then inform decisions that can lead to victory.

Out of this come three reports that, if true, suggest the beginnings of a devastating reversal for Russian forces operating northwest of Kyiv.

First, reports today in multiple outlets that Russian Major General Andrei Sukhovetsky was killed in combat by a sniper. Sukhovetsky, 47, was an elite Russian Spetsnaz commando and veteran of Russias war in Syria. The commander of the Russian 7th Airborne Division, he was assigned the mission of leading the Russian thrust from Belarus to Kyiv. Men like Sukhovetsky have an outsized presence on the battlefield. Theyre inspirational. Their personal leadership at the point of the spear often means the difference between victory and defeat during the fast-paced controlled violence of war. His loss would be devastating to his men and to the organizational momentum of the forces he commanded.

That Sukhovetsky was killed by a sniper suggests that he was personally trying to regain the initiative against Ukrainian forces who had fought him to a standstill.

The second report of merit is the heavy damage sustained in the town of Irpin on the northwest border of Kyivs city limits. The damage to this city suggests a major battle an effort by the Russians to breakthrough. They didnt.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Battle of Bucha. Ukrainian forces claimed the recapture of Bucha hours after the devastation visited on Irpin. The timing is important here. The Russians tried and failed to take Irpin and then the Ukrainians retook Bucha two miles to the northwest of Irpin.

These events, combined with the nearby loss of Sukhovetsky, a two-star general, suggest a reversal of fortune for the Russians in the drive thats come closest to Kyiv and, most importantly, threatens Kyivs logistics links to the west.

Of significance, Ukrainian success at Bucha put their Stinger antiaircraft missiles within range of Antonov International Airport, formerly the home of the worlds largest aircraft, until it was destroyed in fighting days ago. This means that Russia will no longer be able to safely fly cargo into the airport as Buchas town center is only two miles south of the airport, well within the Stingers 5-mile range.

Yet, hours after Buchas apparent recapture, there were widespread reports of Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers ranging further to the west and south of Kyiv, likely probing for weak spots in the Ukrainian defense in the direction of Zhytomyr, about 100 miles to the west of Kyiv, after being rebuffed on the most direct route to the capital city.

Lastly, as more and more Ukrainians mobilize and join local defense units, the regular Ukrainian Army and their reserve forces will be freer to maneuver to counterattack the invading Russians with a greater degree of confidence knowing that the militia has secured the cities.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, special assistant for foreign affairs in the Reagan-era Pentagon, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. He's the author of two books, "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," and "China Attacks," a novel.

Originally posted here:

Ukrainians Rebound In Northwest Battle Of Bucha - The Federalist

WASHINGTON, DC Washingtons mask mandate ended Tuesday morning.

It had been nearly two years, and on its final day, stood as one of the countrys last remaining hold-outs. Texas, in contrast, had ended theirs a full year before while a number of states across the country never even had one at all.

But back in Washington Tuesday morning, a public school employee closed the door in the face of a five-year-old boy who hadnt brought his mask. It was 39 degrees outside.

Next door, military vehicles idled, while soldiers, policemen, and city workers stood watch on the roads. That very night, just five blocks away, both houses of Congress would be convening to hear the presidents annual address to the nation free from arbitrary Covid restrictions.

When the date for the speech was announced in January, no one knew what Covid rules Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would demand. As February began, she told the Republican minority leader she might cap the number of guests at 50 masked.

The politics, however, were already shifting. By mid-February, Democratic governors were pulling back from a hard Covid line by the dozen. The polls were back; the people were done, and a near-empty chamber of masked 80-years-olds would not do.

And so, Pelosi announced Feb. 17, all members of Congress would be invited to the speech. Eleven days later, she said masks would no longer be required.

The show would go on, and the speaker would go maskless. Of course, she clarified, shed have been wearing one if shed had any young children at home.

At first glance, that last statement makes no sense at 81 years old, Pelosi is 140 times more likely to die of Covid than any child. But the speakers line had an audience: The woman guarding the door against errant preschoolers as shed done every day since school finally reopened.

The governors flipped first. They read the polls among even their own voters, and decided to largely end their emergency measures.

The White House was not quick to follow suit; but while moving slowly on ending the emergency, did at least manage to sideline television doom diva Anthony Fauci, keeping him from causing trouble for their governors.

The Congress was next, just freeing up its own members in the past few days.

The teachers unions, however, remain stubborn. Even in many states that have freed adults from all walks from Covid restrictions, children the weakest politically, and the least vulnerable to Covid continue to suffer for no reason other than the teachers unions refusal to yield.

The political damage is real, but even with parents forming opposition voting blocs from Richmond to San Francisco, Democrats have failed to repeal these new powers and controls from the jealous unions. From pay raises to four-day weeks, to banning parents from the premises, to complete and total control over the breathing of little kids, the unions have won many concessions and they arent in any mood to surrender any.

On Tuesday afternoon, D.C. Public Schools sent parents an email. They were making progress against Covid, they crowed, so the kids would be allowed to take their masks off outside.

What goal post had they reached? One hundred and seventy-four positive cases out of 46,000. That is 0.3 percent falling far below even the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions benchmark for continued restrictions.

That evening, as children played outside in their masks, an employee confidently told one mother she hadnt heard anything about any policy change.

Tomorrow morning, as the temperatures hover around 40 degrees, a five-year-old boy will be forced to stand in the cold until he puts on a mask; left out in the cold, with the rest of the children.

Link:

Democrats Have A Teachers Union Problem - The Federalist

Fifty years ago this week, President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique with the Peoples Republic of China. It was a bold act of statecraft that helped drive a wedge between Communist China and the Soviet Union.

For most of the Cold War, the United States had a clear and guiding mission: defeat the Soviet Union and communism, divide our enemies, and protect our allies. Today, the enemies of the United States have taken on the reverse mission: defeat Western democracy, divide the United States and her allies, and protect autocracies.

The Sino-Russian alliance and the regimes they prop up from Caracas to Tehran form a dangerously formidable opponent. It is vital that our elected leaders meet that challenge. Sadly, they are far from meeting that task.

As a candidate for president, Joe Biden promised he would mend our supposedly broken alliances, bring the adults back in charge, stand up to Russia by arming Ukraine, and make America more prosperous. Across all these accounts, he has failed.

Biden has isolated our allies and partners in the Middle East so badly they would not even vote with us at the United Nations to condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine. His administration repeatedly blocked and stalled military assistance to Ukraine, and only promised Stinger missiles to them last week after dovish countries like Germany and the Netherlands had already committed them as well. Inflation is higher than its been in 40 years and gas prices are on the rise even further.

As my former boss, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has stated many times, each administration governs with guiding principles for its foreign policy. For the Trump administration, it was America First. This is the lens through which we viewed all foreign policy decisions: what was best for the American people?

It led to enormous and transformative victories around the world: four peace deals brokered in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. The worlds most deadly terrorists, ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Soleimani, were taken off the battlefield forever. Our diplomatic pressure campaign against the Chinese Communist Partys covert 5G espionage program, Huawei, reduced that threat.

For President Biden, however, his foundation is climate change and the supposed restoration of American standing in the world. That has led to a first-year track record on national security that is nothing less than abysmal. Because of repeated capitulations across the world, our enemies no longer fear us a catastrophic development made evident by revelations that Iran is daring to plot kidnapping and assassination plots against American citizens on our own soil.

Within four months of Biden taking office, Hamas was attacking Israel; after seven months, Kabul fell to the Taliban; and within 13 months, we have the first major ground war in Europe since 1945. Today, we are on the brink of losing our democratic partner, Ukraine, to a power-hungry dictator.

The Biden administrations strategy to prevent the war from taking place was laughable. Their approach relied on scaring Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin with the threat of undisclosed sanctions when Biden had already folded on Nord Stream 2 and New START, and had failed to respond to the Russian hack of the Colonial Pipeline. Biden sought to deter Russia from invading and failed. Now Canada and the Europeans are picking up the slack who would have guessed wed be taking cues from them?

These are just a sampling of the failings weve seen in Bidens first year. Without a fundamental change, what do the next three years look like? We could see China mount a deadly invasion of Taiwan. North Korea could use nuclear extortion to change the status quo on the Korean peninsula. Iran could cross the nuclear threshold and hold the Middle East and Israel hostage to its threats. Our top generals have already warned that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are likely to regain their ability to strike outside of Afghanistan in the coming months.

Putin will be listed in history next to other evil men, from Adolf Hitler to Mao Zedong to Joseph Stalin. He only respects the language of power, and he is fluent in every form of deception. But President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken were naive enough to believe that Putin could be dissuaded solely through rhetoric and the weak threat of sanctions.

Importantly, they lack a critical skill in national security officials: the ability to understand, predict, and disrupt the devious plots of our enemies. Just two weeks ago, Blinken repeatedly lamented that he did not understand why Putin would attack Ukraine when he could work on combatting climate change instead. Read that again: our own secretary of state admitted he cant understand how our adversaries think.

The mounting disasters are not just a coincidence or bad luck they are a direct consequence of individuals who believe misguided ideologies that oppose American exceptionalism, American power, and the fact that America has been the greatest source for peace and prosperity in the history of the world. When you cant stand up for America at home, you will never stand up for her abroad.

Were in a new era of hard power where autocrats dont care if we post pictures of solidarity or hashtags for days on Twitter. Biden and his team need to get serious. Only strength will deter these regimes, which is why it is so vital we continue the task of rebuilding our military strength and nuclear abilities.

Heres a scary fact: the United States has not designed or built a new nuclear warhead since the end of the Cold War, and we no longer have the infrastructure to create new nuclear weapons. The average age of the nuclear warheads in our stockpile is over 25 years older than most of the soldiers tasked with operating the weapons.

Today, China has the worlds largest standing ground forces, the largest navy and coast guard, the largest sub-strategic missile force, and the largest air force in the Indo-Pacific. Russia has been serially cheating on its nuclear treaty obligations, under which China isnt even constrained. Despite such rising threats, Bidens defense budget request for this year was the equivalent of a 5 percent cut after accounting for inflation. How is the United States supposed to deter Russia and China when our leaders apply the disastrous logic of defund the police to our military?

Despite Bidens repeated failings, he has doubled down on the ideology and outlook that led us to the abdication of American power. He has not evaluated his failings and changed course. His next major blunder may be if he inks a proposed nuclear deal with Iran that would provide the regime a rapid path to a nuclear weapon and $90 billion in no-strings-attached sanctions relief.

Biden needs to change course and can only do so through new leadership in his national security team. But there have been no firings except of an Army colonel who dared speak out about the failed approach in Afghanistan.

Recently, a top State Department diplomat working on Iran negotiations was pushed out for disagreeing with the pending capitulation to the regimes nuclear extortion in Vienna. Biden needs to stop the leadership decay in his administration and hes got to stop listening to the nave lackeys who are pushing the few good men out.

One of the greatest differences between democracies like the United States and autocracies like Putins Russia is that our elected officials are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. We evaluate our leaders by their results and hold them accountable when they cant perform.

By any measure, Biden and his top foreign policy officials have failed the American people. They should resign their offices. If they do not, the American people must vote them out. That starts this November by electing new leaders to Congress who will hold the Biden administration accountable and restore American leadership and strength.

Morgan D. Ortagus is a candidate for Tennessees 5th congressional district and was former President Donald Trumps spokesperson at the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021.

See original here:

We've Got Three More Years Of Biden Making The World More Dangerous - The Federalist