Category Archives: Federalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes it racist? I asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here:

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

Left-wing violence predictably erupted over the weekend after the Supreme Court ruled 5-3-1 on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. While pro-life advocates celebrated at the Supreme Court building, the weekend opened with a series of attacks, protests, and arson from pro-abortion radicals. Abortionists attacked state capitol buildings, burned pro-life pregnancy clinics, and even stopped freeway traffic, accosting cars that kept driving with sticks all on the heels of weeks of attacks on pro-life pregnancy clinics, intimidation campaigns outside justices houses, and even an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaughs life.

The decision, though it eliminates Roes concocted right to abortion, does not make abortion illegal as the abortionist narrative spins. However, its enabled state legislators to outlaw abortion if they see fit. Any laws restricting abortion on the books are now enforceable, and Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kentucky outlawed abortion the day of the decision. Six other states are due to follow with standing abortion bans that have a month to go into effect.

Losing the bulwark of control theyve had since 1973 is proving a stroke too far for the baby-killing movement, and it didnt take long for abortionists to make the jump to anarchists. The night of the decision, thousands of abortion supporters attempted to breach the Arizona capitol building, beating the doors and windows. The police deployed tear gas into the crowd and no one breached the building, AZ Central reported. Four were arrested on Saturday but released on Sunday.

While the Department of Homeland Security highlighted concerns over potential targeting of state and federal officials, according to a memo obtained by NBC News, pro-abortion radicals are using a map created by two University of Georgia professors to target pro-life pregnancy clinics. The Crisis Pregnancy Center Map gives the very street address of pro-life pregnancy clinics throughout the country, Fox News reported. An anarchist group in Washington state posted a link to the map, encouraging viewers to find your nearest fake abortion clinic on the Crisis Pregnancy Map.

In Longmont, Colo., a Christian pregnancy clinic was torched on Saturday morning. Officers arrived on scene around 3:20 a.m. to flames and graffiti messages. If abortions arent safe neither are you, one message threatened, with an anarchy symbol next to it.

Early Saturday morning in Lynchburg, Va., a pro-life pregnancy center was vandalized and its windows smashed. Four people were visible damaging the building on the security camera.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Younkin condemned the crime in a tweet Saturday evening, saying, There is no room for this in Virginia, breaking the law is unacceptable. This is not how we find common ground. Virginia State Police stands ready to support local law enforcement as they investigate.

In Portland, Ore., on Saturday, the night after the ruling, a black-garbed crowd of 100 or more set out on the street at 10 p.m., vandalizing and destroying what lay in their path. A flier announcing the march read, If abortions arent safe then you arent either, OregonLive reported. A pregnancy clinic was vandalized and several businesses had their windows smashed in until the demonstrations subsided around 10:45 p.m.

The night of the decision in downtown Los Angeles, a pro-abortion supporter reportedly threw a flame thrower at a police officer during a protest. The officer, one of four to be injured that night, was treated for burns, and his assailant is being charged with attempted murder.

Also in Los Angeles, a group of pro-abortion demonstrators shut down the highway on Friday, stopping cars and beating those that didnt stop with sticks.

In Washington D.C., protesters burned the American flag.

Despite growing violence, President Bidens Department of Justice has shown little interest in prosecuting the perpetrators.

Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College where she fondly excuses the excess amount of coffee she drinks as an occupational hazard.

Excerpt from:

Pro-Aborts Spread Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Dobbs - The Federalist

WASHINGTON, D.C. This is not normal.

That was a phrase bandied about with some frequency during the Donald Trump years. You can still see it from time to time on the bumpers of cars, next to the fading Im With Her sticker.

The left has weaponized the word normal to the point of farce. A secure border, fair trade, and fair defense deals were abnormal, we were told. Meanwhile, the administration that campaigned for normalcy instead ushered inflation into our economy, kicked nicotine out of cigarettes, and invited transvestite strippers into elementary school classrooms.

It becomes difficult to sort reality when words lose their meaning, which is why its easy to miss just how insane the unsuccessful campaign against the Supreme Court truly was.

While sure, a sitting chief executive lashing out at any and all critics on social media is a real departure from the modern presidency, the campaign of judicial espionage, targeted terror attacks and planned street violence all either ignored or tacitly sanctioned by the leaders of the House, Senate and executive was so far outside of normalcy that we havent seen it since the eve of the Civil War. The problem is that in politics, words now mean so little we sometimes struggle to categorize how abnormal our situation is.

It began inside the Supreme Court a formal yet somehow collegial institution, where ideologically opposed justices clash on paper in an atmosphere of mutual respect and even friendship, and where ambitious clerks work tirelessly and professionally. For these very reasons, the courthas become the last major American institution that commands broad respect among the people. That gravitas was tarnished when a draft abortion decision by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to Politico.

Despite the promise of an intensive investigation, we still dont know if the leaker was a justice, a clerk, or maybe even a clerk acting on behalf of a justice. But we do know this: The leak more than six weeks before the final decision went public was intended not simply to publicize the decision, but to alter it.

Worse yet, theres evidence this plan could have worked. Indeed, its amazing it didnt. Because while the Supreme Court of the United States has managed to maintain an honorable image (while even such vaunted and historically apolitical institutions as the U.S. military have become mired), that doesnt mean its immune to outside pressure on even the weightiest of cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, infamously reversed his opinion on the Affordable Care Act after an intense political and media pressure campaign. But while feelings ran high during the Obamacare debate, there was never any honest expectation of violence.

On a question as intrinsically violent as abortion, however? Well, thats another matter entirely.Left-wing street violence has been steadily building for years (all while This Isnt Normal bumper stickers flew off the shelves and onto leftist cars, mind you), including a convenientlyforgotten pipe bomb planted at the Republican National Committees headquarters on Jan 6. So to be clear: Left-wing violence following the leak wasnt just possible, it was virtually assured. The spy leaked it anyways or more than anyways, because of.

The violence that followed the leak wasnt minor. Instead, it was reminiscent of the backlash against civil rights. Its included 18 Christian crisis pregnancy centers firebombed or otherwise vandalized, written and recorded threats directed at volunteers, and the attempted assassination of a presumed anti-abortion justice in his own home.

In the days following the leak, the streets and neighborhood surrounding the Supreme Court were shut down by unruly mobs. Weeks later, police responded in force to a publicly planned attack that fought to blockade the entrances and exits to the court. While the building itself remains heavily guarded and deputies patrol outside justices homes the terrorist group Janes Revenge put up posters around D.C. expressly calling for a violent riot if the court dared to send abortion back to the states.

None of this violence happened in a political vacuum, either. From Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumerspromise on theSupreme Courts steps that justices have released the whirlwind and will pay the price, to Sen. Elizabeth Warrens hoarse and bug-eyed curbside tantrum, the top Democratic brass loudly cheered on the mobs.

Over weeks of attacks, President Joe Biden repeatedly declined to condemn the terrorism against Christians and his political opponents, instead sending his press secretary out to condemn all violence.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delayed a bill for weeks that further protected the justices and their families. That bill passed the Senate unanimously yet sat in the House, but at the White House,the former spokeswoman said, We certainly continue to encourage [peaceful protests] outside justices homes.

When asked why she delayed the bill the morning after the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the speaker said the justices werent under any immediate threat. She couldnt say the truth: that the pro-abortion campaign of violence and intimidation against the court was just heating up. It was just as the politicians of Northern Virginia couldnt adequately explain why they werent enforcing the law against protesting outside of judges homes.

To admit the truthmight be a step too far, even in an American political environment where words have been so thoroughly debased.

The professional left has long understood that if you debase words, you debase truth; and that very type of environment allows you to control truth: to decide what is riot and what is protest, what is mostly peaceful and what is violent, what is direct action and what is insurrection.

What is life, and what is choice.

What is normal, and what is not.

What is truth, and what is fiction.

Despite the howls, the lies and the violence, they failed; but it wont stop them. The Supreme Court persevered, and conservatives witnessed their most important victory since the defeat of the Soviet Union. We had to fight hard to get here, and we cant forget the hell they put us through to stop it.

The fight goes back to our people now, where it belongs. For America, that means the fight is just beginning.

Continued here:

Never Forget How Vicious Was The Left's Anti-Court Campaign - The Federalist

The United Statess education institutions were almost entirely formed for the major purposes of developing good citizens and, usually, faithful Christians. It is no secret that today most of Americas education institutions do the opposite. The result is an existential threat to the nation as its enemies work to destroy the most prosperous, most equal, and most free civilization in world history.

In a refreshingly positive, intellectually sound, and action-minded response to this national crisis, a group of top-notch scholars releases today a recommended curriculum blueprint for the K-12 study of American history and government. American Birthright is at once a redress of curricular grievances and a plan of action for the millions of American patriots who see the moral and intellectual injuries most American schools inflict on the rising generation and therefore the nation as a whole.

As the documents introduction notes, Too many Americans have emerged from our schools ignorant of Americas history, indifferent to liberty, filled with animus against their ancestors and their fellow Americans, and estranged from their country. This course of study seeks to address these major problems that result partly from a lack of accurate and patriotic American history instruction.

The document offers a set of academically robust guidelines for K-12 social studies curriculum that parents can ask their local and state school boards to adopt in the place of what now is largely anti-American curriculum standards. This is not just a K-12 curriculum outline, it is a bold American educational philosophy. The recommendations are a product of the Civics Alliance, coordinated by the apolitical and highly respected National Association of Scholars.

The alliance is a truly bipartisan coalition that includes highly respected scholars such as Glenn Loury of Brown University; Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas; Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University; and Paul Rahe and Wilfred McClay of Hillsdale College (I am a more humble coalition supporter). You can also become a signatory here.

Whats inside this document? American Birthright provides the content knowledge in history, geography, civics, and economics that American citizens need to know so that they can preserve their liberty, the introduction states. The standards give recommended primary source documents, as well as biographies, American folk songs, literature, and other materials.

For example, the document recommends that fifth graders learn how town meetings and the common law affected the early development of American colonial governments. It recommends second graders learn the national anthem and other patriotic songs such as America, the Beautiful, as well as learning about the lives of significant Americans such as Whittaker Chambers, Rosa Parks, Sacagawea, Clarence Thomas, and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

American Birthright would have eighth-graders trace the development of Western Civilization back to the days of Hammurabi, to ancient Egypt, ancient Israel, and ancient Greece. It would have ninth graders read William Blackstone, the Rule of Saint Benedict, the Magna Carta, and Martin Luthers 95 Theses. Indeed, this curriculum blueprint aims at excellence, not just box-checking, and its recommended primary sources could be profitably studied by Americans of all ages and stations in life as an exercise in civic fidelity and growth.

I have read thousands of pages of what are called curriculum standards since the days of Common Core, and reading this set was a refreshing surprise. Its learning goals and plan for achieving those goals are clear and comprehensible to any literate person, which is in fact one aim of the enterprise.

Usually what pass for curriculum standards is essentially subliterate so full of meaning-lite education jargon as to be almost incomprehensible. Go read your own states so-called curriculum standards to see this yourself. Jargon is one way the education bureaucracy resists accountability to parents and voters. If principals, parents, and the like cant understand what teachers are supposed to do, they cant hold them accountable for it.

American Birthright, on the other hand, is readable, clear, and informative. Any parent could use the document to plan out his or her own course of after-school or homeschool study, as could any teacher or school district. And if a parent or school did so, they would graduate students far more civically minded and responsible than almost all American schools do today.

Thats why parents need to approach their schools, legislatures, and state boards of education and ask that start using American Birthright as their guide to U.S. history and government curricula immediately. It is also a useful document to use to measure the quality of civics and other instruction in a given school district.

Many school districts are considered to be good when they in fact add very little, if anything, to childrens natural gifts received from productive and intact homes. They coast on reputations that others work and virtues have earned. Measuring their curriculum and reading materials against this high-quality benchmark will give parents an accurate assessment of the actual quality of their childrens schools or potential schools.

Many will likely find that their schools do not measure up. Then its time to work to improve that situation, either by internal advocacy or leaving to find a truly good school, or both.

State lawmakers have zero legitimate excuses for failing to require this level of American history education in government-run schools immediately. Those who do not are failing to uphold their oaths to the U.S. Constitution and the people of their states by presiding over rampant anti-American instruction in American schools. These scholars have done a public service by carrying out all the substantive work needed; all policymakers need to do now is just say yes, thank you.

The rest is here:

Here's What Your Child's School Should Be Teaching About US History - The Federalist

Ben Ginsberg, a January 6th committee witness, works under one of the organizations whose Zuck Bucks funding may have compromised the 2020 election a fact committee representatives did not disclose during the televised hearing on June 13.

Ginsberg is the co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network (EOLDN), which connects licensed, qualified, pro bono attorneys with election administrators who need advice or assistance. EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). As The Federalist previously reported, CEIRs grants to states for nonpartisan voter education ahead of the 2020 election may have given Democrats an advantage in key states.

Through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $69.5 million to CEIR as well as $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor in Chief of The Federalist, writes in her book Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections that CEIR and CTCL did not merely attempt to influence the election from the outside but to infiltrate them from within.

What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever, the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives, Hemingway writes. Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states.

While CEIR claims to be nonpartisan, The Star News Network reported that in 2020 the group gave a $12 million grant to the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration, which used $11.8 million of this grant to pay two Democratic political consulting firms.

Earlier this year, the State of Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel published an investigative report stating that for Wisconsin election officials accepting EOLDNs services might be a violation of state law.

Since EOLDNs free legal services will have foremost in mind protecting the interests of CTCL, CEIR, Zuckerberg, and Chan, it will influence the election officials official actions and judgment, the report said, continuing: CTCL, Zuckerberg, and Chan financed the illegal drop boxes and election bribery, so EOLDNs free legal services to the election officials could be reasonably seen as a reward for their participation in unlawful actions related to the election.

Neither Ginsburg, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who introduced him, nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who questioned him, mentioned his work under CEIR as the co-chair of EOLDN. None of them brought up CEIR or CTCL at all. The discussion of fraud focused narrowly on legal challenges from the Trump campaign and post-election reviews in battleground states, both of which Ginsberg said lacked credible evidence.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Read more:

J6 Committee Ignores Witness's Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election - The Federalist

The Supreme Court has overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and now the issue of abortion will be part of our national debate as much as ever. Here are some of the many reasons the usual arguments in favor of abortion are wrong.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The government should stay out of peoples private lives. This is a womans choice, not anyone elses, and a womens rights issue.

Why Its Wrong: Laws often restrict an individuals rights, including the right to hurt another person or infringe upon anothers rights. In taking the life of an unborn child, a woman is taking away the most basic of all rights.

An unborn child is not part of a womans body, but a separate, individual human being with his or her own rights. A child is not the mothers property, just as parents are legal guardians of children but not the childrens owners and are not allowed to abuse their children.

Pro-Abortion Claim: When most abortions take place, in early pregnancy, a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells, not a human being. It doesnt feel pain.

Why Its Wrong: A new life begins at conception and should not be destroyed by human interference.

First, one-third of abortions take place after nine weeks of pregnancy. Yet from the moment of conception, the zygote has its own unique DNA structure, is alive and growing, and is equipped to become a mature human being.

Six weeks after conception, the unborn childs heartbeat is detectable but began beating before then. At week three, neural development begins. At week four, the eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form. At week six, the mouth and lips are present. At week seven,the embryo looks like a baby.

The beginning of life could be defined by many different points of development fertilization (the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cell), implantation, the first movement, heartbeat, or brain waves, consciousness, or birth. Any point you choose could be just a days difference between life and death for an unborn child.

Drawing the line at the point of viability is also problematic that point will continue to get earlier in the pregnancy as medical advances create better means of keeping the unborn alive outside the womb; indeed, viability is now weeks earlier than it was when Roe was decided.

Yet the unborn child did not become a person because he could survive due to modern science. Newborns are not technically viable either, as they cannot survive on their own. By this logic, we should consider it acceptable to kill newborns.

Nor does the absence of pain at early stages make it moral to kill the unborn child, just as it would not with an adult. Abortion can involve sucking a baby out of the uterus (or as Planned Parenthood putsit, the suction machine is turned on and the uterus is gently emptied), causing a stillbirth by injecting a salt solution into the uterus, and other horrors.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion cant be a crime against nature if fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried in nature.

Why Its Wrong: The occurrence of an event in nature does not justify deliberately mimicking that event. The elderly die of natural causes, but that doesnt make it right to kill them. And many miscarriages are associated with extra or missing chromosomes.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Birth control isnt 100 percent effective. When it fails, women have been responsible and need abortion as another method to avoid having a child.

Why Its Wrong: Seven percent of women report having sex without using some form of birth prevention in the past three months, not including 8 percent who have such sex but are seeking pregnancy or already pregnant. Many people who use birth control do not do so effectively.

The pregnancy prevention rate of birth-control pills used consistently and correctly is 99 percent. For that small portion who correctly used birth control but it did not prevent conception, they have to accept the risks of sexual activity, which include a child. Contraception is free with most health insurance plans and easily available.

Pro-Abortion Claim: In the case of rape or incest, when a woman was an innocent victim of an involuntary act, she should not be forced to carry a child. She would be forced to suffer even more.

Why Its Wrong: One percent of women say they want an abortion because they were raped, and less than 0.5 percent say they are pregnant as a result of incest. Even in such very rare cases, an unborn child should not be killed because of another persons evil deed. The pregnant woman needs love and support, not more trauma.

An estimated 800,000 abortions take place in the United States each year. Common reasons given for seeking an abortion are that a child would disrupt the mothers education (38 percent), interfere with job or career (38 percent), or be unaffordable (73 percent). About half of respondents said they didnt want to be a single mom or were having relationship problems.

About a third said they didnt want any more kids; 25 percent said they didnt want people to know they had sex or got pregnant; 32 percent said they werent ready for a child; and 22 percent didnt feel mature enough to raise children. More than half of those seeking abortion have had at least one previous birth.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Minors are too young for the responsibilities of parenthood.

Why Its Wrong: About 3 percent of females who get abortions are younger than 18, and 8 percent are 18 to 19 years old. Parents of minors should teach their children about the consequences of sex, the benefits of abstinence, and the limitations of contraception, among other things: Sex can lead to pregnancy and if it does the unborn child should not be killed.

Accepting truths that you dont like is part of maturity, and sex should be reserved for mature people ready to care for a child.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were made legal only in cases of rape or incest, women would lie.

Why Its Wrong: The court system could settle the truth of their claims and more reporting of rape and incest would help bring perpetrators to justice.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.

Why Its Wrong: Even if abortion is safer than pregnancy, that doesnt make it right. But with modern medicine, the death risks for both abortion and pregnancy are very low.

Pro-Abortion Claim: It would be better for abnormal fetuses to be aborted than to live with poor health or a disability.

Why Its Wrong: In the case of the small minority of fetuses with a potentially life-threatening abnormality, a natural death may result, but, if not, the child should be given the benefit of the doubt, not be killed. Its wrong to kill disabled people for their disabilities.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were outlawed, women would just get riskier, dangerous abortions.

Why Its Wrong: People break other laws with repercussions too, but we dont avoid that outcome by not making those laws. Outlawing abortion would save millions of unborn babies lives.

It is difficult to know the number of abortions resulting in death before abortion was legalized, because many illegal abortions went unreported. Education is the best alternative, so women know the risks of trying to get an abortion illegally, how to effectively use birth control, and how they can receive assistance as mothers.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The right to an abortion has led to a more prosperous society as women have continued in their careers and low-income couples have not been burdened with an additional expense. Abortion has reduced the child abuse and crime that arise from unwanted children.

Why Its Wrong: Abortion has been bad for our society, as it devalues human life and the fulfillment that only family and children, not a job, can provide. If women want to put careers first or cant afford children, they should practice abstinence or correctly use birth control and make plans for accepting the consequences if that fails.

If women are poor and do have children, the government provides assistance. Adoption is also a better option than killing an unborn child. Many loving, screened, financially stable parents are waiting to adopt babies.

As for whether studies prove that abortion has reduced crime or abuse, this is a dangerous line of argument. Should we abort babies of certain groups more likely to be criminals?

Pro-Abortion Claim: A woman has a right to privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and to make her own decisions about her life and happiness.

Why Its Wrong: Roe v. Wade was so strongly resisted because it was a deeply flawed decision.

The legal arguments are lengthy, but the short answer is that the constitutional right to liberty simply does not grant the right to kill another person, and an unborn child is a person.

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, and about half of Americans consider themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Overturning Roe will not end abortion rights but return the issue to the states, allowing for a more democratic process the debate will continue, but the truth remains the same.

Originally posted here:

How To Win The Debate On Abortion In 12 Clear Counterpoints - The Federalist