Category Archives: Federalist

With Old Hollywood sensibilities and contemporary writing, Mank is truly the best of both worlds. David Finchers new Netflix film, following Herman Mank Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he writes the screenplay of Citizen Kane is a stunning piece of cinema and a must-watch for anyone who loves old movies.

Along with the sequences of Mank struggling to write the script while combatting his alcoholism, the film contains many flashbacks to his time as a successful writer, his friendships with William Randolph Hearst (the ultimate inspiration for Kane) and Hearsts mistress Marion Davies, and their subsequent fallout surrounding Upton Sinclairs bid for governor of California.

If youre searching for a wholly factual depiction of Mankiewiczs life or the making of Citizen Kane, then you should look elsewhere, and stop believing that biopics will ever be historically accurate. However, what it lacks in accuracy is more than made up for by the films capturing of the feel of classic movies.

Fincher is one of the most talented and engaging directors working today. His meticulous shots and enthralling storytelling draw you in, making what could have been an isolating tale of 1930s political power brokers and their Hollywood connections into a character study of fascinating and relatable individuals.

Every technical aspect of the film is exemplary, with the cinematography, lighting, costume, hair, editing, and score all contributing to the potent atmosphere. I regret not having been able to see the film in a theater, to fully enjoy the visuals. They were gorgeously detailed without becoming overly busy or distracting.

An especially exciting Easter egg was the presence of cue marks, the black dots that briefly appear twice in the top right corner of the screen, to indicate a film reel would soon require switching (now unnecessary due to the switch to digital).

Those who grew up when digital had already replaced film myself included were first introduced to the existence of these cigarette burns in the cult classic that launched a thousand dorm room posters, Fight Club, also directed by Fincher, adding to the meta excitement as well as the period accuracy.

To clarify the timelines, due to the nonlinear narrative structure employing many flashbacks, the year is given at each era transition, in the form of a screenplay. While announcements such as time and location can be frustrating and lazy, the framing as part of the script allows the narrative cheat to add to the film.

Yet none of this style is empty spectacle. It serves to augment a compelling story led by interesting characters. The cast is exceptional, with nearly no weak links. They play off each other exceptionally, with the lived-in chemistry of longtime associates. One scene midway through the film sees most of the main characters at a dinner party, laughing, drinking too much, and talking politics, all scored live by a pianist using his instrument to punctuate the conversation.

Watching the scene transported audiences directly into the party, watching jokes, subtextual tensions, and complications in relationships ebb and flow through fabulously witty dialogue and well-realized characters. I could have watched an entire film set just at that party.

The only misstep in the cast was Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair, an uninspired bit of stunt casting gone awry. The childrens entertainer and scientist does not have the acting chops to make anything of the mercifully small role. Sinclairs failed gubernatorial race is a notable subplot, due to Hearst and Louis B. Mayers fears of his socialist past contrasted with Manks sympathies.

Gary Oldman is predictably brilliant as the eponymous writer. He is fun and charming, but the cruelty of his alcoholism always lurks beneath the surface (except when it explodes in a powerful and climactic scene). Charles Dance is likewise charismatic yet dangerous as communications magnate Hearst, upon whom Charles Foster Kane is based.

However, by far the high point in a cast filled with highs was Amanda Seyfried as Hearsts lover, actress Marion Davies, giving the performance of both the film and her career. Seyfried brings depth to the seemingly vapid woman, subtly indicating a complicated woman underneath the flighty, fun surface.When award season eventually arrives, Seyfried ought to be a major contender for the supporting actress statue.

She likewise effortlessly handles the period slang naturally strewn throughout the dialogue, earnestly exclaiming words like Jeepers as if they were staples of her vocabulary. Often in period pieces, actors stumble over an antiquated lexicon, calling undue attention to the outdated words. The entire cast, but Seyfried in particular, breezes through the dialogue with grace.

Far too many movies about making movies become either self-indulgent odes to the importance of Hollywood, such as La La Land and Netflixs miniseries Hollywood. Mank, in contrast, is clearly a love letter to the films, not the industry. Every frame is imbued with a passion for cinema, which is infectious to the audience. In exploring the creation of an exceptional film, Fincher has created one himself.

Paulina Enck is an intern at the Federalist and current student at Georgetown University in the School of Foreign Service. Follow her on Twitter at @itspaulinaenck

Continue reading here:

In Modern Storytelling, 'Mank' Is A Beautiful Blast From The Past - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, former MMA fighter and The Mandalorian star Gina Carano joins host Ben Domenech to discuss her role in the Star Wars series and explain how she approaches ideological diversity and wokeness in Hollywood.

The whole reason I started speaking out is because I feel like there is a large group of people that were being silenced this year and being forced to play this game of wokeism or whatever it is, Carano explained. No matterwho you voted for, no matter who you are, I want to create a platform where everybody can have an opportunity. Everybody.

In the interview, Carano also admitted that she hasnt watched the second season of The Mandalorian.

I dont like to watch myself. I feel like I get in my head a little bit, Carano explained. Ill watch it eventually just to see how I can grow from it. The more fascination for me was seeing the other Star Wars fans enjoy it.

With a franchise, I think somebody has to be such a fan, they have to be a big fan of what they are doing, or else I dont think it works as well, Carano said.

Excerpt from:

'Mandalorian' Star Gina Carano Takes Us Behind The Scenes, Explains Her Politics - The Federalist

President Donald Trump is on his way to becoming the most cancelled man in America.

On Friday, Twitter pulled the plug on the presidents account in a move that was a long time coming after a horde of Trump supporters rampaged about the U.S. Capitol in protest of the Electoral College certification. The move followed Facebook and Instagram doing the same on Thursday, sparking a leftist purge of online voices dissenting from the dystopian world order of big tech oligarchs ruling from Silicon Valley.

Google, Snapchat, Spotify, Shopify, YouTube, TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit, and Twitch have each now banned or restricted an outgoing president now facing not only corporate banishment from the online public square but a second impeachment by Democrats seeking to bar the outgoing commander-in-chief from ever holding office again. The presidents exile, however, coming from top government officials and big corporate exposes not only the faade of Democrats call for unity but a deep obliviousness to the underlying issues that sparked the Capitol unrest.

Below is one of the final posts retweeted by Ashli Babbitt, the 35-year-old woman who served 14 years in the military and was shot to death while attacking the Capitol building.

People I trust in Washington DC 1) President Trump the end, the post reads.

While video of Babbitts shooting calls into question the officers use of a deadly weapon, her presence at the Capitol cant be excused. Nor could any other persons. Americans were killed in the attack, dozens others were injured. The imagery of a riotous mob overwhelming the Capitol put another scar on a fractured country.

Condemning the rioters and understanding their presence, however, are not mutually exclusive. Each are equally important.

Babbitts endorsement of the post above, along with the more than 22,000 others who liked it, is emblematic of the worldview shared by millions as institutional leaders have failed them, lied to them, and even mocked them for decades.

As my colleague, Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky, points out, while their views of mistrust might be misguided, theyre hard to blame, because the corporate media has lied to them about the big stuff time and time and time again. So have their elected officials. So have scientific institutions and leaders in academia.

Theyve watched their mayors and governors violate their own regulations for the sake of leisure or personal convenience or politics, crippling business and workers while they eat crabs. They then watched the medias nakedly unbalanced coverage of it all, wild bias from bonus-pocketing journalists purporting to be arbiters of fact and undisputed occupants of the moral high ground.

Their lives, like all of our lives, have been upended in just over a decade by products tech oligarchs promised would make us happier. Those same billionaires now join the chorus of elites who treat them as irredeemables and deplorables because they disagree with full-throated progressivism.

So when Trump stood down the street from the Capitol and blasted the election being certified in the Democrats favor as an illegitimate process, his thousands of followers believed him, ransacked the Capitol, and gave leftists ammunition to declare them deplorable.

Last weeks unrest has now been capitalized on by Democrats and their allies in big media and big tech to implement a corporate-government crackdown that was absent in the aftermath of routine riots last year from far-left militants.The onslaught has offered Democrats the political momentum to achieve the top policy item of their Trump-era agenda: the presidents impeachment, even after hes out of office.

Impeachment, however, only serves to inflame divisions by rooting out a man who was always a symptom of deep problems that promise to persist even long after his departure. Worse, Trumps post-presidential impeachment reinforces the convictions of the presidents supporters who believe Trump is the only figure they could trust. Thats what led them to riot in the first place.

Read this article:

A Divisive Impeachment Will Only Make Trump A Martyr - The Federalist

The Democrat chair of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security wants Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley put on the federal No Fly list due to the actions they participated in when the U.S. Capitol was ransacked by Trump supporters on Jan. 6.

When asked by SiriusXM host Joe Madison whether the no-fly sanction should be applied if Cruz and Hawley are found liable for the capitol unrest, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Rep. Bennie G. Thompson said, Theres no question about it.

Theres no exemption for being put on the no-fly list, said Thompson. Even a member of Congress that commits a crime, you know, theyre expelled from the body. There are ethics charges that can be brought against those individuals. And people are looking at all of this.

Cruz and Hawley did not participate in any violent actions. The senators have both publicly condemned any rioting that occurred on Jan. 6. Democrats are angry because Hawley and Cruz led a legal objectionto counting some Electoral College votes. For wanting to ensure the integrity of U.S.elections, Democrats are callingfor the senators to resign or beremovedfrom office.

Hawley and Cruz have been smeared by the left as violent insurrectionists and threats to our democracy. President-elect Joe Biden last FridaycalledHawley and Cruz Nazis who should be flat beaten the next time they run.

Following the capitol riot, Simon and Schuster said last Thursday that it has canceled the publication of Hawleys upcoming book The Tyranny of Big Tech.

Thompson is leading the charge to punish all the rioters who entered the capitol. First of all, these folks, in my opinion, can be classified as domestic terrorists because of the actions they participated in on Wednesday, said Thompson. Now under normal circumstances international terrorists are out on no-fly lists. These are domestic terroristssame thing. A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter who you are.

Apparently, however, it does matter who you are. The Mississippi representative never characterized the Black Lives Matter and Antifa thugs, who looted and vandalized American cities all summer including the U.S. capitol, resulting in mass chaos, destruction, insurance payouts of up to $2 billion, and the death of at least 30 people, as terrorists. Nor did he rally to have the left-wing rioters placed on the no-fly list. Actually, he publicly supportedthem.

Evita Duffy is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at the University of Chicago, where she studies American History. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, & her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1

Go here to read the rest:

Democrat Wants To Put Josh Hawley And Ted Cruz On The No-Fly List - The Federalist

If Andrew Yang wants to be mayor of New York, he needs to live here.

Andrew Yang wants to be the mayor of New York City. Its an attractive job opportunity given that the current mayor, Bill de Blasio, is so awful that anyone in the city over the age of 5 would do a better job than he has. The problem, however, is that Yang is not in the city. Instead, Yang and his family have been residing in the tony Hudson Valley town of New Paltz. He explained why that is to the New York Times, and its a doozy.

We live in a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. And so, like, can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment, and then trying to do work yourself? Yang asked.

Well, yes, Mr. Yang, I can imagine that. In fact, I dont have to imagine it because I am living it. Even as I write this, my son is in his room in my two-bedroom apartment doing virtual school while I work. This has been a reality for millions of New Yorkers for almost a year now. And most of us arent even millionaires. Yang cant imagine it? He cannot conjure in his mind what it is like to live under the current conditions in New York City? And he wants to be my mayor?

Beyond Yangs degree of tone-deafness, his comment also makes New Yorkers question his basic knowledge of Gotham. His two-bedroom in Manhattans Hells Kitchen neighborhood might not be spacious enough for his current needs, but if space is the issue, there is no reason to flee to New Paltz. Someone might want to tell him about the outer boroughs.

Parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx have stand-alone homes and breezy backyards. In Staten Island, there are so many deer that the city has a Deer Impact Management Plan. It also has some of the finest pizza in all the land. The point is that if space is Yangs hang-up, New York City offers a ton of options. What New York City does not offer, however, is indoor dining or movies. For those, one must go to a place we refer to as Upstate, which is actually the entirety of the rest of New York.

In a city that produced both de Blasio and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Yang might wind up being the most rational and reasonable electable candidate, notwithstanding his goofy universal basic income proposals. Former Democratic Rep. Max Rose, something of a moderate who ran ads featuring himself with Donald Trump, has declined to run, leaving the centrist lane open. But this is not a good start for Yang. Telling people you want to govern the city but cant imagine living there sounds like something someone from Jersey would say.

Yang is right though that conditions in Americas largest city right now are pretty horrible. Thats one reason why its losing residents faster than a gun shot victim loses blood and it also has near-record numbers of those. Many of the people leaving are moving to Florida, which is weird since most people in the media think the Sunshine States governor, Ron DeSantis, is the living embodiment of evil.

If Yang wants to reside in Gracie Mansion, he cant hide out in New Paltz while the city suffers. He has to be here with us. He has to be able not just to imagine but to experience the brutal effect that lockdowns are having on our communities.

Andrew Yang has a shot, but he has to step up his game. Be our neighbor, feel our pain, Mr. Yang. You cant lead New York City from New Paltz.

David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

Go here to see the original:

Andrew Yang Can't Imagine The Reality New Yorkers Face - The Federalist

AR15.com, the biggest gun forum in the world, was deplatformed on Monday by web hosting company GoDaddy.

ARFCOM IS DOWN. Weve been booted from GoDaddy and are looking for an alternative solution, the site announced Monday afternoon on Twitter.

The swift termination by internet host GoDaddy forced AR15.coms leadership to think on their feet and quickly create a temporary URL so freedom lovers and firearm enthusiasts could continue to access the information and resources on the site.

Instead of offering specifics about kicking the gun site off the internet, GoDaddy merely claimed that AR15.com violated its terms of service, which resulted in instant termination.

On Monday, January 11, 2021, I received notice from our site registrar that AR15.com had violated their terms of service and that AR15.com would be shut down immediately, President and Co-Founder of the gun site Juan Avila told The Federalist in a statement. The registrars decision to de-platform AR15.com was final and no method to appeal was offered.

It remains unclear specifically what content allegedly violated the registrars terms of service, he added.

When asked by The Federalist about the decision to remove AR15.com, GoDaddy claimed that the site both promotes and encourages violence, but did not offer any specific examples. Instead, they offered AR15.com 24 hours to relocate its business.

The decision from GoDaddy follows of series of bans and contract terminations by big tech companies such as Amazon, Google, Apple, Twitter, and Facebook targeting conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump. In addition to using their acquired power to ban and distance themselves from the president and his supporters, many have also engaged in what some have labeled anti-competitive behavior, encouraging and pushing each other to nuke alternative sites such as Parler.

Despite the abrupt change in AR15.coms site domain and traffic, Avila said that AR15.com already found a new, First Amendment-friendly site registrar that will accommodate the forum during its transition, which may take a few days.

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

Link:

The Biggest Gun Forum Just Kicked Off The Internet Without Explanation - The Federalist

It is time to move on.

Donald Trumps utility for conservatives is expiring along with his presidency. The Senate runoffs are done, the stunts objecting to the electoral results have come to nothing, and it is time for those who supported the soon-to-be former-President Trump for reasons of policy, not personality, to bid him farewell.

For those whose support for Trump was transactional, this is an easy decision, like replacing a broken tool. We got on the Trump train at different times and for different reasons judges, tax cuts, a chance to shake up the Republican Party, the Democrats being awful but its time to exit.

He was a means to an end, and we do not need to stick with him when he can no longer serve our ends. Those who wanted Trump to, say, appoint Federalist Society judges and disrupt Zombie Reaganism should take our wins and cash out.

A prudential deal to support Trump in exchange for results is not an oath to be Forever Trump. Indeed, wanting Trump to remain the face of the Republican franchise, or perhaps to pass the mantle down to his children is an awful idea.

Although Trump helped clear the way for the future of the GOP as a party more focused on working families, he was often more talk (or tweet) than action let alone results. His personality was so toxic that a record number of voters came out against him. Thus, Trump will soon be one more former politician scrambling to retain his political influence.

Republican candidates may still want Trumps endorsement and fundraising help, but he will have nothing to offer to voters. His devoted fans may pine for him to run again in 2024, but Republicans should look for someone better.

That we can do better is presumed in the justification frequently offered for supporting Trump, which is that he was the lesser evil. Now that it is no longer a choice between Trump and the Democrats, an array of options has opened up and we should look them over with a fine-toothed comb. To be sure, we can move beyond Trump without returning to the decadent status quo he disrupted.

Trumps flaws are still there, but the favors he can offer us are gone unless he wins another election. Furthermore, Trumps flaws were often politically self-sabotaging, making the odds of him ever winning again slim.

Consider Trumps behavior since the election. He claims that he lost due to massive election fraud but his lawyers have not substantiated his claims in court (even in front of judges that he selected), and his ideas for challenging the results were increasingly unconstitutional.

His threats to campaign against Georgia Republicans he deemed insufficiently supportive of these schemes during runoff elections to determine control of the Senate! reveal Trump to be a malicious man who puts his wounded ego before the good of the party he leads.

In politics, winning can cover a multitude of sins, but Trump is not a winner anymore, in part because his response to his own loss led to more Republicans losing. Trumps egotistical insistence that Georgia was rigged against him may well have been what cost Republicans the Senate. It is no surprise that Republican turnout was down, especially in the most Trump-friendly areas: why should voters bother to turn out for another rigged election?

Trump ended his time in office by betraying his own voters and by selling them conspiracies about how their votes had not been counted in the last race, which presumably means they would not be counted in the next one. Ultimately, his ego and lack of discipline were crucial in giving Democrats unified control of the elected branches.

It will be a hard two years of legislative defeats, and a bad four years of executive orders, all of which will rachet up the culture war battles ever further. Nonetheless, conservatives should not despair. The margins the Democrats have to deal with are slim, which will exacerbate their own internal tensions. Republicans can win the next elections if they can unite, but Trump is not the leader for that task.

Although the policy concerns of dedicated Trump voters should be addressed, it would be folly for the party to remain in thrall to a defeated politician who unites and motivates Democrats while alienating enough Republicans to lose.

They may not like it, but the populist and establishment wings of the GOP need each other to win. They must work together as a coalition, rather than trying to raze each other to the ground both Trumps most ardent GOP fans and foes share a penchant for threatening to burn the party down if they dont get their way. Trumps propensity for assailing Republicans who displease him adds fuel to this fire, especially given his mercurial and sometimes impossible demands.

Trump is too unstable to build and sustain a winning Republican coalition. If the GOP is going to become a viable populist party, it needs someone more competent and moral than Trump to lead it. He is going out as a conspiracy-theorist loser who stoked riots attacking the capitol. This should be the end of Trump; the auditions to replace him begin now.

Nathanael Blake is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist. He has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Photo Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Original post:

To Win In The Future, Republicans Need To Move On From Trump - The Federalist

The presidential election was close. Only 84 Electoral College votes separated the contenders. Widespread allegations of ballot fraud were claimed by national party chairmen in 11 states, with court challenges lasting into the middle of the year following the election. Changing the results in just two states would flip the election.

The fraud allegations were serious, including dead people voting and votes far in excess of registered voters in some counties. Yet partisan election boards quickly certified the results while local judges, loyal to the political machines that installed them, threw out legal challenges. Eventually, 650 people were charged with election fraud, but only three were convicted, all given short sentences.

No, this isnt a story about 2020. Its a story of 1960. U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy defeated two-term Vice President Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election by 303 to 219 electoral votes (with 15 ballots going to Sen. Harry F. Byrd). Nixon lost Illinois by 8,858 votes and Texas by 46,257. Had those two narrow losses been overturned, Nixon would have won and America might not have fought and lost the Vietnam War.

Since 1960, a myth has grown up around Nixon: that as a statesman, he decided not to challenge the results so as not to divide the nation. Even so, the Republican National Committee contested the results in the courts until mid-1961.

It was more likely that Nixon knew there was no practical path to overturning the results, clear evidence of fraud or not. That Nixon played the statesman was a convenient myth for all parties involved.

The election of 1876 was even more contentious, with Congress exercising its constitutional role as an arbiter of competing electoral slates sent by the states. Then, as now, the national climate was unsettled. The victorious North was weary of maintaining a standing army in the South.

In the years after the Civil War, some 1,500 black office holders, most recently freed slaves, were elected or appointed, mostly in the South. They held federal and state offices in all 11 of the states that constituted the core of the Confederacy. President Grant won reelection in 1872, prevailing in all but three of the 11 states of the old ConfederacyGeorgia, Tennessee, and Texaswith the votes of black Republicans.

But four years later, as federal troops were being drawn down, the Ku Klux Klan emerged as a terrorist tool of the Democratic Party, driving black Republicans out of office and voters away from the polls. When combined with poll taxes that charged the equivalent of about $20 for the right to vote, literacy tests, and official intimidation, large numbers of black Republicans were prevented from voting.

There was still a viable Republican Party apparatus in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina to claim victory, although the Democrats also forwarded competing slates of electors backed by a Democrat winning the governorship in Florida, with two disputed gubernatorial elections in Louisiana and South Carolina that saw the Democratic candidates installed after the presidential electors were assigned to Rutherford B. Hayes.

In the end, rather than risk losing a messy battle over the competing electoral slates, Republicans struck a devils bargain, formally agreeing to end Reconstruction in exchange for the presidency. Mechanically, the constitutional crisis was resolved through a bipartisan Electoral Commission, as the Constitution is silent on exactly how Electoral College disputes should be settled.

This constitutional silence appears to be a major oversight. The Founders, skeptical of politicians wielding power at the expense of the peoples liberty, set up a system of divided governmentthree national, co-equal branches along with the statesin a federal system.

Given that most of the Founders concern over the erosion of liberty was aimed at the national government, there was little direction given over how the electors were to be selected beyond three paragraphs in Article II, Section 1. Simply put, these paragraphs specify that state legislatures determine the manner of the electors appointment and that Congress determines both the election day and the day the electors vote.

Absent in this process is any sort of a check on the states. What if a states electoral system is corrupted? What if big city or regional political machines shift the election outcome, as was alleged in 1960 and 1876?

The courts have proven to be a notoriously ineffective check against election fraud. Prior to an election, when much of the advance work needed to cheat is accomplished, the courts will generally find a lack of standing, as no harm has yet been done. After a corrupted election, courts will shrug and say the point is mootthe election is already over. As with impeachment, the question appears to be political.

Two relevant lawsuits in the 2020 contest illustrate this principle. Texas filed a lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as being tainted by sidestepping state election laws. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the case, merely stating that, Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

The second lawsuit was brought in Pennsylvania, where it was contended that a statute, 2019s Act 77, allowing a huge expansion in mail-in voting, violated the states constitution. After the state supreme court rejected the argument more on process than substance, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

This leads to a pressing concern. How can illegalities reasonably be proved in the 79 days from Election Day to Inauguration Dayor, more urgently, the 35 days to Dec. 8, the Safe Harbor deadline for resolving any controversies over electors and electoral votes? Proving election-changing fraud in a mere five weeks, typically in the face of a state political apparatus that is loath to admit error or fraud or, worse yet, was an active participant in it, is difficult at best and, in a practical sense, impossible.

With courts unwilling to accept cases, the typical processes to validate an election come down to two means: recounts and audits. Recounts will, in most cases, simply recount any fraudulent votes and, on occasion, uncover genuine errors or simple attempts at cheating by transposing election returns, hiding ballot boxes, or counting some precincts twice. Audits, routinely done in many states, are a tool to validate that computerized machine counts match with any sort of paper backup the system may use.

Neither audits nor recounts will uncover traditional types of fraud such as aggressive harvesting of mail-in ballots, including from the deceased, those living under a guardianship due to mental incapacity, or people subject to pressure or inducements, such as small amounts of cash or access to a food pantry run by those connected to the local political machine.

We know that election fraud does occur in America, contrary to the repeated claims by Democrats and their allies in corporate and social media. In 2020, in New Jerseys third-largest city, Paterson, new municipal elections were ordered after massive and systemic vote-by-mail fraud was uncovered. A councilman, councilman-elect, and two others were charged with voting fraud. Also, in 2020 in nearby Philadelphia, former Democratic congressman Michael Ozzie Myers was charged with ballot-box stuffing over three years of elections, 2014, 2015, and 2016 by conspiring with and bribing a judge of elections.

We all saw the alarming and suspicious behavior of elections officials in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and other areas where election observers were blocked or held back so far they were unable to monitor the counting, or were told to go home as counting was done for the night. COVID-19 also provided the excuse that people who stood in line to grocery shop could also not safely stand in line to votethus necessitating what was, in many swing states, a massive expansion in by-mail voting with a concurrent relaxing of safeguards, such as signature matching, designed to minimize fraud.

The opportunities for systemic cheating had never been greater in 60 years. The relevant legal question is, was it enough to change the election results? The practical question is, could election-changing fraud be proven in only 35 days?

Imagine if a well-placed elections official in Philadelphia came forward and admitted to significant election fraud and provided corroborating evidence. Would the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a Democrat-majority body thoroughly in the thrall of partisan politics, have acted? Would the Democrat governor or Democrat secretary of state have acted?

The legislature might have acted, but any electoral slate they put forward would have been superseded by the slate certified by the governor. Congress might have acted, but, at best, would have deadlocked, meaning the governors certified slate would prevail.

The aftermath of the 2020 election finds the nation unsettled, with legitimate concerns about election fraud overshadowed by the capitol riot and kooky conspiracy theories, such as the tale that U.S. Special Forces were killed in an operation to seize election-related computer servers operated by the CIA in Germany, where the agency was working to change votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

The original source of the rumor was said to be a tweet in German. The translated tweet was rapidly picked up and circulated by QAnon, an informal grouping of conspiracy theorists. Its probable the tweet was crafted by Russian or Chinese intelligence services with the express intent to increase distrust in U.S. institutions. At the very least, the unfounded rumor distracted from real efforts to uncover and prove election fraud.

Regarding the reprehensible riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6: had the declared election winner been reversed, theres no doubt the scale of the violence would have been far greater, while the media and elites would have supported it, as they did over last summers long season of discontent.

HR 1 has been reintroduced in the U.S. House. 2019s version passed the House and never received a vote in the Senate. It seeks to cement Democrat dominance of national elections by instituting a national voter registration program, making Election Day a federal holiday, requiring prepaid postage for mail-in ballots, criminalizing some forms of political speech, removing the power to redistrict from state legislatures, and eliminating the ability of state officials to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter lists.

Winning elections with fraud may be easy enough, but governing a people with vanishing trust in the system will be increasingly difficult. The nation would benefit from a thorough and honest review of the 2020 electionbut it almost surely wont happen.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010.

View post:

The 2020 Election Aftermath Is Not At All Unprecedented In US History - The Federalist

Facebook and Instagram are banning President Donald Trump from their platforms beginning Thursday.

We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote.

Zuckerberg announced the decision on his own Facebook page, citing Wednesdays tumultuous, destructive events at the Capitol as one of the main reasons for the ban.

Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies, he wrote. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

Zuckerberg continued by claiming that the company needed to remove the president to ensure the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden. While the CEO claims the block will last for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete, he left the actual length of the ban open-ended.

Facebook previously announced on Wednesday that it would remove all photos and videos of the Capitol riots because they promoted criminal activity. This decision followed the big tech companys censorship and removal of Trumps video calling for peace and rule of law at the Capitol, claiming it instigated more violence.

His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect and likely their intent would be to provoke further violence, Zuckerberg wrote in his most recent statement.

Twitter also recently announced a 12-hour lock on Trumps account on Wednesday following a series of now-deleted posts that the company claimsviolated its Civic Integrity policy.

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

See the rest here:

Facebook And Instagram Just Permabanned The US President - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Helen Andrews, senior editor at The American Conservative, joins Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to discuss her book Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster and how millennials can approach understanding their predecessors decisions and lifestyles.

Boomers thought they could remake the whole world, and it turned out that they did not, Andrews said, noting that certain economic and cultural decisions have left millennials feeling cheated. They are not God. They do not have a God-like power to recreate the world.

While most baby boomers have generational flaws that they have carried throughout their lifetimes, Andrews warned against generalizing individuals who do not fully fit the mold.

Its about what choices people make, Andrews said.

She also noted that millennials are just as susceptible to making the same mistakes and should try to avoid generational hypocrisy.

Something in me really revolts against people who show contempt for their predecessors when they are carrying on the same tradition, Andrews said. You are insulting your ancestors for the very thing that you are doing.

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

See the rest here:

Why Millennials Love To Hate Boomers And Whether It's Deserved - The Federalist