Category Archives: Federalist

The Biden administrations efforts to impose transgender ideology on the nations children and schools are going into overdrive, and leading the charge is Dr. Rachel Levine, the U.S. assistant secretary for health.

Levine, a man who became a physician and raised a family before transitioning, has been celebrated by leftists and the corporate media as the first female four-star admiral in the history of the U.S. Public Health Service and a Woman of the Year. But the debate about this has gone beyond such absurdities or the willingness of Big Tech censors to punish those who mocked or denied Levines pretensions to being one of Americas most prominent females.

Levine has gone on the offensive against states that seek to enforce parental rights over the willingness of schools to push transgender ideology on children or to ban treatments for minors that amount to life-altering decisions or mutilations. These laws, passed by Texas and Florida, amount to a retaking of the public square for sanity and traditional norms about the way the medical profession deals with children. But Levine refers to them as insidious actions that are politically motivated and really harm the children involved.

Unlike leftist ideologues and media companies like Disney that have sought to normalize the indoctrination of transgender ideology on students as young as kindergarteners, Levine isnt just advocating for dangerous policies. As a fawning interview with NPR made clear, the full force of the federal government is now behind the threats issued by the pediatrician-turned-admiral to go after anyone or any state that seeks to protect children from such dangerous policies.

Characterizing efforts by states to prohibit life-altering surgeries on minors as political attacks against trans young people, Levine said that we encourage trans and gender-diverse youth and their families [who] are feeling they are being discriminated against in Texas or any other state [to] contact our office.

In the NPR article, Levine doesnt just falsely claim that no qualified or respected doctor disagrees with the idea of pushing hormone treatments that will render children sterile or surgery that will mutilate them. There is no argument among medical professionals, he said, thereby dismissing the justified concerns of Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo and the studies he has cited that point to serious problems with allowing children to choose sterilizations and mutilations with no chance of reversal.

Levine also threatens that anyone who opposes such practices may also be investigated by the federal governments Health and Human Services Departments Office of Civil Rights.

Going even further and without a trace of irony, Levine suggests that the U.S. Department of Education would also regard efforts to stop transgender indoctrination as somehow a violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. This is despite the fact that fealty to transgender myths has made a mockery of the law that paved the way for more women to take part in sports by allowing biological males to compete and dominate in competitions solely intended for females. Instead of using Title IX to protect women as it was originally intended, Levine says, it will be employed for sexual and gender minorities.

Levine makes much of the anguish experienced by youths who believe they ought to be a different sex and says that the power of the state should be employed to help them transition. Gender dysphoria is real, but as authors like Abigail Shrier have pointed out and as Dr. Ladapo argues, many if not most of those who experience these feelings find that their dysphoria subsides either before or after they become adults. Ladapo says that 80 percent of young people who claim to be transgender give up such desires because they either are homosexual or come to accept their sex.

Levine suggests those who disagree with authorizing schools and physicians to proceed with medical and surgical services that cannot be reversed are ignorant, insensitive, or bigoted. But this dispute goes beyond efforts to compel people to call those who assert that they are transgender by their preferred pronouns. Nor does it have anything to do with the right of adults to make choices about their lives or to call themselves whatever they like.

Levine isnt merely endorsing education curricula that facilitate the efforts of the transgender lobby to introduce children to concepts about their options for choosing a different sex than their own.

The federal governments guidelines that Biden has promulgated and the threat of civil rights lawsuits and prosecutions seek to intimidate states, school boards, educators, and parents. Claims by minors of being transgender are not merely to be encouraged. Local authorities and doctors must, according to Levine, comply with the demands of suffering children going through years that are difficult for everyone to prevent them from, as Levine puts it, going through the wrong puberty.

The idea that children can order up life-altering surgeries or treatments is unheard of as a matter of law in civilized societies. Or at least it was in the United States until Levine and the transgender lobby gained the sort of power that puts the federal government behind their agenda. That is why Florida and Texas were right to ban such treatments for minor children.

Yet what is equally disturbing about this controversy is the ability of ideologues like Levine, supported by woke corporate media outlets, to silence debate about the issue by treating all dissent from their positions as bigotry. That is why social media companies enforcement of diktats from the transgender lobby is so pernicious.

Its not just the injustice of shutting up journalists and publications that wont bend their knees to the new woke catechism. Their goal is to silence all dissent and forestall any debate about the impact on children of dangerous treatments put forward by fashionable gender affirming quacks, in spite of the massive pushback from outraged parents who are rising up against such toxic policies.

This makes the willingness of states to resist the federal guidelines all the more important. It also is one more piece of evidence that shows that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis decision to take on the Walt Disney Company in favor of parental rights and against transgender indoctrination isnt just good politics, but also absolutely necessary if children are to be protected against the damage that Levines guidelines are inflicting on them.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

Visit link:

Trans-Crazed Quacks Want Your Kids And Will Win If You Don't Fight Back - The Federalist

A KGB term of tradecraft is now part of U.S. Department of Homeland Security governance.

The new Biden administration Disinformation Governance Board, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told CNN, is a small working group to address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence without infringing on free speech and while protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right to privacy. The board has no operational authority of its own, Mayorkas said.

Mayorkas denied that the board will cause American citizens to be monitored, saying, we, the Department of Homeland Security, dont monitor American citizens.

That might be true. But Mayorkas went on to say the Disinformation Governance Board is mandated to provide best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators in agencies that do have operational authority.

Never before has disinformation governance been part of the official U.S. government terminology for defending the internal security of the country.

Disinformation is not a word from the English language. It is a direct translation of the Russian word dezinformatsiya. It is a KGB form of tradecraft from the Red Banner Institute of the KGB First Chief Directorate, otherwise known as the KGB foreign spy academy.

Disinformation is definition 159 in the KGBs Lexicon of KGB Terms, published internally by the Soviet foreign intelligence service before 1984. Here it is: Misleading by means of false information; A form of intelligence work in the Active Measures field, which consists of the secret channeling towards an adversary of false information, especially prepared materials and fabricated documents designed to mislead him and prompt him to take decisions and measures which fit with the plans and intentions of the Intelligence Service.

Active measures is another KGB term of tradecraft. The KGB lexicon defines active measures as Agent operational measures aimed at exerting useful influence on aspects of the political life of a target country which are of interest, its foreign policy, the solution of international problems, misleading the adversary, undermining and weakening its positions, the disruption of his hostile plans, and the achievement of other aims.

Disinformation is a component of active measures. Foreign agent operational measures make the defense against disinformation and active measures a counterintelligence function, not a homeland security one. DHS has no statutory counterintelligence authority. That authority, as well as the authority to combat foreign disinformation and propaganda, rests by law with the FBI.

Whether the FBI remains fit for this role is another matter. The point is that combating foreign disinformation domestically is counterintelligence, which by law is not a DHS responsibility.

Even if the Disinformation Governance Board did have such a legitimate purpose, it would rest in the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Instead, this disinformation board is housed in the very political DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, and therefore is a potential domestic political instrument.

Thus the board, as Mayorkas explained it, will not spy on American citizens free speech per se, but will provide the best practices and policy guidance to those who do.

Disinformation did not enter into widespread use in English until the 1980s, when the Reagan administration, with bipartisan support in Congress, launched a State Department-led Office to Counter Soviet Active Measures and Disinformation to combat Soviet political warfare worldwide, without impinging on the free speech of American citizens. (References to that office have been practically wiped from online search engines.) The State Department retains a small office to monitor foreign disinformation.

KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, Czechoslovakian intelligence officer Ladislav Bittman, KGB Major Ladislav Levchenko, and others shed more light on disinformation after they fled to the United States between 1961 and 1979 during the Cold War. All agreed that disinformation was a purely KGB term of tradecraft. All wrote books on the subject.

The origin of disinformation as an operational word is rooted in Joseph Stalins NKVD secret police, with some references to the earliest days of World War II. The Oxford English Dictionary has no definition of the word prior to 1947, when the Cold War began. Merriam-Webster traces disinformation to hearings on Communist subversion in 1953, and to Nazi and Soviet techniques as early as 1940. Occasional usage of the word appeared in the 19th century as an infrequent, contrived, non-standard synonym of misinformation.

Misinformation, of course, isnt the same as disinformation. It is a mis-statement, or the inadvertent or careless spreading of inaccuracies or untruths, without malign intent. Yet Mayorkas and others have used the two terms interchangeably. So have many public experts.

Under the Trump administration, DHS created a Countering Foreign Influence Task Force within the departments Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Biden administration morphed it into the Mis- Dis- and Malinformation (MDM) team whose stated job is to build national resilience to MDM and foreign influence activities.

Note the modification: keeping the old countering foreign influence function and adding what MDM calls false or misleading information in general. MDM thus became a federal government influence operational entity of its own. The Disinformation Governance Board is an interagency add-on within the DHS policy shop.

While it does explain the distinctions between misinformation and disinformation, the DHS MDM Team has sanitized the origins of disinformation as a KGB term of tradecraft. Indeed, it erased the distinction between disinformation as a foreign active measures technique and the simple use or abuse of words in domestic American political discourse.

Last year, DHS re-defined disinformation as follows: Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

So DHS re-defined disinformation, sanitized the term of its KGB roots, and expanded the definition by removing the foreign element and applying the label to First Amendment-protected political discourse. DHS then officially adopted the KGB word as its own to create a political board for governance of disinformation whatever that is to guide agencies to monitor American citizens free speech.

J. Michael Waller is senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy. His areas of concentration are propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion. He is a former professor at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington, DC. A former instructor with the Naval Postgraduate School, he is an instructor/lecturer at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg.

See the original post:

Biden's 'Disinformation' Board Is A Tool Straight From Soviet Russia's KGB - The Federalist

When Justice Samuel Alitos draft majority opinion for the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization was leaked to the news media, it came as a shock. How could such a thing happen? Are the norms that keep our government together unraveling? For those who have followed the Supreme Court over the last several years, there is unfortunately more continuity to outrageous behavior than is often recognized.

Immediately after the leak, we learned that the sort of left-wing dark money groups that brought the Supreme Court confirmation process to new lows with their antics with Justice Kavanaughs hearings are at it again. An outfit calling itself Ruth Sent Us has posted a map with the home addresses of what it calls the six extremist justices and organized protests next week at their personal homes.The radical left is now doxxing Supreme Court justices.

Do you remember the circus of obstruction and vilification that the left inflicted on the nation in opposition to Brett Kavanaughs 2018 nomination? We documented it in our book, Justice on Trial.Protesters funded by dark-money groups, including Planned Parenthood, shouting down the Senate Judiciary Committee and having to be dragged out by police, with over 200 arrests? Protesters dressed like handmaids converging on Capitol Hill to communicate that Kavanaughs confirmation would hurl America into a dark dystopia?

And how about the Democratic senators who went along, waging scurrilous arguments to try to delegitimize the nominee from the outset and interrupting their own hearings on the Senate Judiciary Committee 63 times before the first lunch break? Through a week of hearings, they tried one stunt after another, sometimes operating in jaw-dropping lockstep with the protestors. The Senates final vote on the nomination was taken amid repeated interruptions from yet another brigade of protesters who had to be taken out of the Senate gallery by U.S. Capitol Police. Other protesters crossed police lines at the Capitol Building or stormed up the steps of the Supreme Court to pound on its doors. 164 arrests resulted.

Once Kavanaugh officially joined the Court, he did not make the traditional walk down the marble steps of the Court out of concern for his safety.

The left failed to defeat Kavanaugh in 2018, but they did not shed their radicalism they only got more strident. Less than a year went by before Democratic senators threatened the Court in an amicus brief with restructuring if it did not rule the way they preferred. In 2020, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch by name in front of the Supreme Court after oral arguments in an abortion case, warning that they would pay the price for a disagreeable decision.

Now that the Court appears poised to finally overturn Roe v. Wade and correct one of the greatest acts of judicial arrogance in Americanhistory, the radical Left appears intent on following through with Senator Schumers threat.

When asked whether President Biden supports the doxxing of Supreme Court justices, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to criticize the tactic, glibly remarking that I think the presidents view is that there is a lot of passion. What an appalling abdication of responsibility.

There are a number of unanswered questions about the Ruth Sent Us group. Its website notes, Stipends [are] available for protestors. Who exactly is paying for these stipends? Recall that during the Kavanaugh hearings, left-wing groups also provided financial incentives for protestors, including offering lodging to traveling protesters and jail and bail support if necessary.

The website links to a different organization, Strike for Choice, which shows connections to groups including Black Lives Matter, Code Pink, Womens March SF, Kavanaugh Off Our Court, and Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. How exactly are these groups connected?

Similar to Bidens White House, the Ruth Sent Us website purports to advocate for peaceful protests. Is that like the mostly peaceful protests burning down cities across the country two years ago at the BLM-organized demonstrations? Already this week pro-abortion protestors and police clashed in Los Angeles when a group of protestors began to throw rocks and bottlesin a demonstration in front of the federal courthouse. At least one officer was injured.

Will groups like Demand Justice condemn these protests at justices homes? So far, they have been silent. What about Demand Justice board member Elie Mystal, who called the Constitution kind of trash?Demand Justices executive director Brian Fallon has instead criticized the increased security measures being taken at the Supreme Court itself, stating that the Court needs more accountability, not less. Sounds a lot like Psaki yesterday.

Psakis stunning comments yesterday should come as no surprise given that she herself worked for Demand Justice before joining the White House this is after all the White House that left-wing dark money built.Demand Justice was launched by the Arabella Advisors network, which spent over one billion dollars in the 2020 election cycle to help elect Joe Biden president and win a Democratic Senate.

Since its launch, Demand Justice has led the charge to pack the Court and bullied Justice Stephen Breyer off the bench so that a younger activist could take his place.We dont know if Ruth Sent Us is also funded by groups in the expansive Arabella network because they have yet to disclose their donors but it certainly resembles the kind of pop-up groups that Arabella is known for.

The parallels between this planned protest and the disgusting antics we saw from left-wing dark-money groups during the Kavanaugh confirmation are striking. Even the handmaids are going to be making a return. In these days before whatever they have planned for the justices homes, they are already disrupting Catholic churches.

It is as if there is no institution left in American society that leftists are not willing to destroy if they think that is what they need to do to achieve their policy goals.

Get ready for the next iteration of the Kavanaugh circus. Indeed, protecting Roe is what that circus was about in the first place. Now, with Roe itself facing its imminent demise, the left has made itself more dangerous than ever before.

See the article here:

The Kavanaugh Circus Continues, More Dangerous Than Ever - The Federalist

Just two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary election, GOP Senate candidate Kathy Barnette said she is alive today because her mother, who was only a pre-teen when she was raped, decided not to end the life in her womb.

I am the byproduct of a rape, the veteran revealed during the Republican primary debate on Wednesday. My mother was 11 years old when I was conceived, my father was 21. I was not just a lump of cells. As you can see, Im still not just a lump of cells. My life has value.

Barnette said that regardless of whether the premature release of the Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion was a leak or a tactical operation, she is pro-life because she believes life in the womb is just as important as life outside it.

My life is valuable, and so are the many lives that find themselves in the womb of their mother, whether in the womb, or towards the end of that life, she said.

Barnette also cast doubt on her opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz for saying he is pro-life. Up until recently, Oz, who garnered an endorsement from former President Donald Trump, expressed hesitancy at laws restricting abortion and lamented that before Roe v. Wade, women who endured traumatic events and wanted abortions had to turn to coat-hanger events.

That is one of the reasons why it was so very disturbing when I saw Mehmet Oz running for this particular race, when Ive seen him on numerous occasions, specifically at the Breakfast Club, saying that my life was nothing more than an acorn with electrical currents, Barnette said. I am wondering if the doctor has now since changed his position on that.

Oz responded that he believes life begins at conception and that I would never think of harming that child or even nine months earlier, but just a few months prior, he endorsed abortion in cases of rape, incest, and if the mothers life is at risk.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

More:

Senate Candidate Kathy Barnette: I'm The Product Of Rape But Was Never A Clump Of Cells - The Federalist

Democrats are outraged that, according to a leaked version of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion, the United States Supreme Court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade but their hypocritical insistence that abortion is the law of the land is fueled by the partys determination to codify abortion without any restrictions.

Polling suggests that a majority of Americans are opposed to killing babies in the womb up until birth. A 2021 survey from The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 80 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in the third trimester of pregnancy. A more recent Fox News poll conducted shortly before the Dobbs opinion leak found that 54 percent of registered voters support laws restricting abortion after 15 weeks.

Despite the fact that American voters are hesitant to endorse unlimited abortion, many elected Democrats have made it a key part of their partys platform going into the 2022 midterms.

When asked if he supports any legal limits on abortion, Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock refused to answer directly and instead said, I support a womans right to choose.

Pennsylvanias Democrat Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is running for a chance at a U.S. Senate seat, was even more straightforward about what he believes about unlimited abortions.

Are there any limits on abortion that you would find appropriate? a reporter asked.

I dont believe so, no, Fetterman replied after pledging to nuke the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade.

Democrat candidates have also joined the frenzy of leftists scrambling to proclaim their belief that women have a right to choose to end the life of an unborn baby at any time without question.

When Fox Newss Bret Baier asked Ohio Democrat congressman and Senate nominee Tim Ryan whether he supports any limits on abortion, Ryan tried to skirt the question.

I think what we had established in Roe, is something that we can continue to work with, and I think those could be the parameters, Ryan began.

My question is about any limits to abortion? At any point? Late-term? Anything? Baier asked.

You gotta leave it up to the woman, Ryan said.

When Baier pressed him again, Ryan said you and I sitting here cant account for all the different scenarios

Similarly, when NBCs Chuck Todd asked Ohio Democrat gubernatorial nominee Nan Whaley where do you draw limits on the issue of abortion? she deflected.

I think that we need to make sure we have access. Ive fought with Pro-Choice Ohio and Planned Parenthood to keep our clinics open, she said. I dont think government should be involved in it.

Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto ORourke admitted on Thursday that when it comes to legal restrictions on abortion, he believes this is a decision for a woman to make.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Conor Lamb acknowledged his support for unlimited abortion during his states Democrat debate this week.

If your right is a right, its your right the whole way through pregnancy, Lamb said. This is a constitutional right that women have, and that they deserve to have.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week that My support of abortion is grounded in the belief that this is not the role of our government, it is not the role of lawmakers.

It is the responsibility of women and their doctors, women and their families, women and whomever they choose to bring into the conversation, but it is not the conversation for government to be having, she said.

Arizona gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs also insisted in a local interview that she is not a fan of imposing limits on abortion.

What would your limits be on this? This limits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. Where do you draw the line? the host asked.

Well, women deserve access to abortion care. Abortion is health care. Ive been very clear on my position on that throughout my time in the legislature. So if Im elected governor, thats what folks are getting. And I will work with the legislature thats in place to ensure that women have continued access to reproductive health care, she said.

The host once again pressed her on the issue.

But where do you draw the line though? he asked. I mean, if its not 15 weeks, is it 24 weeks? Where do you draw the line where you say, okay, abortions after this point of time, no, its a no go?

Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her family and her doctor. And thats something that needs to be discussed in the medical exam room, not by politicians, she replied.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Read more:

It's Not Just Roe. Dems Want The Unlimited Ability To Kill Preborn Babies - The Federalist

Diesel prices reached a nationwide average of $5.54 per gallon on Monday, setting a new all-time record, according to AAA travel agencys gas tracker. In March, the cost of regular unleaded fuel remained less than half a cent from its record high of $4.33 per gallon, at $4.328 on Monday.

These high fuel costs are just the first devastating drop, the negative effects of which will ripple throughout the entire economy, with increased transportation prices adding stress to inflationary pressures already shooting up the cost of goods and services. In March, the year-over-year inflation was marked at 8.5 percent, the highest rate since 1981. Bloomberg Economics predicts that U.S. households will spend another$5,200 this year, or $433 a month, for the same basket of goods as last year.

While diesel prices might not immediately alarm many consumers who rely on regular unleaded gasoline for routine transportation, tankers, trains, trucks, farming machinery and other industrial equipment rely on diesel.

Diesel is the fuel that powers the economy, Patrick De Haan, the chief petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, told CNBC. These increased costs are certainly going to translate into more expensive goods.

Despite the price increases, the Biden administration has continued to antagonize the oil and gas industry with a cascade of new taxes and regulations that hamper production.

In April, President Joe Bidens Department of the Interior released plans to resume oil and gas leases on federal lands in compliance with a court order following a 15-month suspension. The agencys compulsory sales offered only 20 percent of the lands that were initially nominated and approved for leasing, complemented by a 50 percent spike in royalties from minerals extracted.

Despite moving forward, the administration has been clear about its desire to shut down the federal lease sales. These sales were only scheduled after a federal judge in Louisiana deemed the administrations pause on them illegitimate last summer.

We dont feel they are needed, explained White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, even as Psaki and the president repeatedly blame Russias war in Ukraine as the reason for rising prices with the motto Putins price hike.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy has been even more explicit.

President Biden remains absolutely committed to not moving forward with additional drilling on public lands, McCarthy said on MSNBC.

The lefts animosity to oil and gas exploration has chilled investment in the labor- and capital-intensive industry, cooling production in the process even as prices skyrocket. To suppress gas prices ahead of the November midterms, President Biden ordered the self-proclaimed unprecedented release of stored crude from the nations emergency stockpile, with 1 million barrels put on the market daily for the next six months beginning next week.

The president has offered no plans to restock the emergency reserves.

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

Read more from the original source:

Diesel Prices Hit All-Time High, Meaning So Will The Costs Of Everything - The Federalist

After years of using vague language to couch their quest to end the lives of preborn babies, the left is finally admitting that abortion means killing a child in the womb.

One day after President Joe Biden threatenedto use his executive authority to fight a potential Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson that would spell the end of Roe v. Wade, he admitted that abortion ends the life of a child.

The idea that were going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard, Biden told reporters on Tuesday.

Unlike his allies at Planned Parenthood, Biden seems to understand that abortion doesnt just involve the life of a woman, it also involves the life of a kid. That fact, however, didnt stop him from sullying the courts tentative move to hand decisions about killing babies back to the states as radical.

The Views Whoopi Goldberg, another leftist icon, also declared this week that abortion involves a preborn child.

My doctor and myself, and my child, thats who makes the decision, Goldberg said.

The ACLU similarly implied that abortion is the decision when and if to have a child.

However the decision ultimately comes down, the ACLU will never stop fighting for the right to choose when and if to have a child, the group tweeted this week.

Pro-abortion demonstrators at the Supreme Court this week seemed to understand that abortion takes the life of a baby too, with one person shouting to kill those f-cking babies.

The lefts confession that babies in the womb are in fact children and not a clump of cells is something that conservatives and pro-lifers have said for decades.

Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lamented the courts double standard on language surrounding the grisly act of murdering unborn children.

It is curious how the Courts view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue, he wrote in his concurring opinion in Jones v. Mississippi last year.

Thomas said the court wants to consider juvenile criminals children but when it comes to young girls having abortions, the court pretends they are responsible enough to make life-ending decisions.

When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that children are different and that courts must consider a childs lesser culpability, Thomas wrote. And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a young womans right to choose.

Its not lost on the people who support, fund, and run the abortion industry thatmedical textbookshave recognized that biological life begins at conception. Most of them are aware that, in the womb, babies develop a heartbeat, a functioning brain, working organs, touch, taste, and the capacity to feel pain. In later growth stages, preborn children even learn to breathe, hear, and see.

The difference between the pro-life community and the left is no longer about whether babies in the womb are indeed children. Its that, even though Biden, Goldberg, and the ACLU seem to understand that abortion ends a babys life in utero, they and the rest of the abortion lobby are still advocating for the destruction of preborn lives.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Original post:

The Left Is Finally Admitting That Abortion Means Killing Children - The Federalist

On Monday, May 9, Russia will hold its annual celebration marking the defeat of Germany in World War Two. Since 1945, Moscow has hosted a grand military parade in Red Square with dignitaries reviewing the troops from atop the mausoleum than contains Vladimir Lenins tomb.

During the long twilight of the Cold War, there was an entire sub-branch of Kremlinology dedicated to analyzing who was invited onto the mausoleum, with its top tier having room for about 20 people. This will be the first Victory Day Parade ever to see Russia involved in a conventional war in Europe, hence, the symbolism of who is, or is not, on the mausoleum may take on greater significance.

Adding further intrigue are reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to soon undergo cancer surgery, temporarily transferring power to Nikolai Patrushev, a former intelligence and security officer who serves as Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Patrushev is said to be even more ruthless than Putin.

For the past nine years, General of the Army Sergey Shoygu has presided as the parade inspector. For eight of those years, General of the Army Oleg Salyukov has been the parade commander. Will either reprise their roles, given the crippling corruption and incompetence hobbling the Russian military that occurred under their watch?

Of note, General Valery Gerasimov was the parades commander from 2009 to 2012. Putin ordered Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, to personally take command of Russias renewed offensive to the north of the Donbas Basin in Ukraines east, He arrived in the region on April 27. Reports suggest he was wounded in the leg on May 1 by a Ukrainian artillery strike.

But Russias war against Ukraine has not gone according to plan. The initial attempt to topple the government in Kyiv in the days after the Feb. 24 invasion failed. Expectations for a quick victory were built on a wobbly three-legged stool.

The first leg was Putins own extensively prepared claim that Ukraine isnt a real nation and that its always been a part of Russia. The second leg was Russias relatively easy victory in 2014 in Crimea and in the eastern majority ethnic Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk at a time when Ukraines pro-Russian president had neglected the armed forces, leaving the nation largely defenseless. The third leg of this now broken stool was built from Gerasimovs theories on modern so-called hybrid warfare.

In speeches and papers, Gen. Gerasimov suggested that successful Russian operations achieve information and psychological dominance over the enemy. To do this, chaos must be sown in the initial period of war even before the first kinetic shots are fired. This can only be done by ignoring the traditional lines between war and peace, and politics and war. Further, and this is important to Western nations that are now finally sending Ukraine the military equipment, ammunition, and spare parts needed to fight, is the fact that hybrid warfare sees the synergy of chaos (nonlinear and nonmilitary tactics) as no longer merely supporting of conventional force, but equivalent to it.

Thus, the widely reported Russian and Chinese cyber-attack on Ukrainian networks initiated before formal hostilities were a form of chaos-seeding, as well as aggressive exploitation of social media to spread false reports and undermine Ukraines standing with Western democracies.

That these hybrid tactics werent enough to win on the cheap doesnt mean that they dont have value. It simply means that Ukraine, having had a near-death experience in 2014, reformed and upgraded its defenses. Regeneration is an advantage held by representative governments such as Ukraine over security states like Russia. Even imperfect representative governments are more adaptable than the most perfect of security states.

So, Putin is said to need cancer surgery, Gerasimov is wounded, and Russias war on Ukraine is faltering. As I look at the situation more as a former elected lawmaker than as a retired intelligence officer here are the things Ill be watching.

First, is Putin truly ill, and will he go under the knife? For such a powerful, paranoid man with many enemies who likely ordered the assassinations of scores of opponents and dissidents, this decision must weigh heavily. Who can be trusted? While he is vulnerable, any one of a number of people could kill him including Nikolai Patrushev himself.

But the claimed illness brings an upside to Putin. Putin took personal command of the war in late April, handing domestic authority over to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. Putins direct involvement in a war that hasnt panned out, though Russia is firing more long-range missiles deep into Ukraine, means cancer could be a graceful exit or a way to salvage a reputation and a retirement. For Putin, the war might be over, though not likely the war itself.

Russians place great significance on special dates, and few dates are more special than May 9. Not long ago it was suggested that Russias retooled offensive against Ukraine in the east and the south might have borne enough fruit by May 9 to declare victory, real or symbolic. Those thoughts have sailed through the air like a Russian tanks turret, landing with a thud in muddy, bloody reality. Thus, this Victory Day Parade will be devoid of triumph.

Watch carefully the Red Square mausoleum for signs of Russias future.

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

Read the original:

Russia's Annual 'Victory Day' Celebration Takes On A Different Meaning This Year - The Federalist

Theres a myth in Indianapolis Republican circles that goes something like this: back in the good old days, the Indiana GOP was made up of high-minded, moderate statesmen from metro Indianapolis like Richard Lugar and Bill Hudnut. Then a bunch of troglodytes from rural Indiana like Mike Pence took over and wrecked the party and state with extreme social conservative policies that are bad for business.

Reality is very different. Since Republicans retook power in the state in 2005, Indiana has largely been run by Republicans from metro Indianapolis who have operated according to a philosophy Mitch Daniels called the truce, or the avoidance of social issues in favor of fiscal and economic development matters.

In terms of actual legislation enacted, Indiana is one of the least socially conservative red states. But the economic results have also been underwhelming to poor for the state and its people. The Indianapolis GOP elites and their truce both effectively disenfranchised and impoverished the states Republican voters, while the left, which never agreed to any part of a truce, made significant advances on its own social policy agenda in the state.

From the standpoint of the average Republican voter, the truce was thus a double failure. Theres no reason to believe abandoning cultural issues in favor of economics will work anywhere.

Daniels truce idea got big press back in 2010 and 2011 as he was exploring a bid for president. Although I dont recall him using the term with regards to how he governed Indiana, this is basically how he operated for eight years.

We see this in his owntop 100 accomplishmentslist thats still on the state website. Not one of them is a social conservative item. Ive never once heard Daniels speak of a social conservative policy with regards to his tenure as governor since leaving office. A newIndianapolis Monthly articleon the states GOP candidly says social conservatives were boxed out during his eight-year tenure.

There were a few social conservative moves during the Daniels admin, but they were pretty small ball, and temporary. The state denied, then reversed the denial of a special license plate for a gay organization in Indy. (The state has numerous special fundraising plates like this). The state also tried to defund Planned Parenthood, a law that wasoverturnedin federal court.

Most notably, at that time 29 states were passing constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. Daniels and the GOP killed one in Indiana procedurally in a state Senate committee. Indiana, one of the reddest states in the country, thus was among a minority of states that never passed a constitutional gay marriage ban.

Pence looms large in the myth, but was only in office for four of the 17-plus consecutive years the GOP has controlled the Indiana governors office. Pence is known almost entirely for the controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This legislation unexpectedly caught the ire of corporations, who threatened to boycott the state if it wasnt repealed. Indiana quickly capitulated.

There was nothing special about this law. It was based on a federal law of the same name signed by President Bill Clinton. Many states have RFRA laws on the books today, including Texas. Indianas number just came up. Pence also signed some anti-abortion legislation that was overturned in the courts, with the exception of rules requiring the burial or cremation of post-abortion remains.

When Pence became vice president, former Daniels campaign manager Eric Holcomb became governor. Holcomb has not only reverted to the Daniels approach of avoiding social conservative issues when he can, he actively signals to the left on social issues, such as by announcing the creation of a state diversity, equity, and inclusion office, doing photo-ops with refugees, and recently vetoing a ban on transgender athletes in girls sports in the states schools (it will almost certainly be overridden by the legislature). He was one of only two GOP governors to veto such a bill.

With the exception of abortion, where there have been some laws passed and regulatory squeezes applied to the industry, theres been much more noise than reality for social or cultural conservatism in Indiana. Plenty of socially conservative bills, or anti-urban bills, or various other proposals that give the left apoplexy get introduced in the legislature every year.

Many of them are frankly wacky. They cause a firestorm in the local press. It may be that business and other lobbies have to invest large amounts of time and political capital stopping these, but almost none ever get enacted.

For example, for multiple years running, conservative state senators have introduced bills to try to cancel public transit expansions in Indianapolis. These are dumb bills, to be sure, but they were successfully killed.

In the supposedly troglodyte, hyper-conservative run Indiana:

In some respects, Indiana is one of the least socially conservative red states in terms of laws enacted. Culturally, the state probably skews more to a folk libertarianism than hard-core social conservatism, but its certainly more conservative than its laws would suggest.

Its important to also note that again, contrary to popular belief, people from metro Indianapolis have been running the state. Daniels, Holcomb, state Speaker of the House Todd Huston, his predecessor Brian Bosma, state GOP chair Kyle Hupfer all from metro Indy. (The state Senate president pro-tempore is also from metro Indy, although from a part more culturally aligned with the rest of the state).

As Indianapolis Monthly observed, The moderate wing of the party was and is a creature of greater Indianapolis. And, To say Daniels remade Indianas Republican politics in his own image would be an understatement.

Pence, the one exception to metro Indianapolis rule, was in power for less than a quarter of the latest Republican streak. Any time he or anyone else attempted or attempts to do anything contrary to the Indianapolis agenda, they are subjected to vicious attacks.

Former Daniels campaign manager Bill Osterle openly tried to recruit someone to primary Pence for re-election (and flirted with running for governor himself). Other Indianapolis-area GOP leaders openly poured scorn on Pence.

When conservative state treasurer Richard Mourdock primaried and defeated long-time Sen. Richard Lugar, big tracts of establishment GOP people voted Democrat to ensure he couldnt win in the general election. (Rank and file conservative voters are ironically much more loyal to the party than the elite, and will vote for Libertarian protest candidates, but rarely for a Democrat. Many Christian leaders openly teach that it is actually a sin to vote for a Democrat. But the leaders have no such loyalty, something I observed first-hand at the Manhattan Institute in 2016, where more of the staff probably voted for Hillary than Trump).

Undoubtedly there are socially conservative factions within the Indiana GOP, particularly in the state legislature. They do have to be reckoned with and sometimes placated. But they have not been the ruling faction for the vast majority of the last 17 years. And their influence has more been felt in areas like limiting local control in municipalities than in cultural priorities.

While the Republican governance agenda is far from reflecting the totality of the preferences of the Indianapolis leadership class as a whole, it is Indianapolis-area moderate Republicans who have disproportionately steered the state. A central organizing principle of their approach since Daniels was elected has de facto been the suppression of the cultural aspirations and preferences of the average Republican voter in the state.

I was a big Daniels supporter, and with the exception of a couple of policy points agreed with almost everything he did. I remain a great admirer of his. The idea of the truce, of trading social priorities for fiscal discipline and economic growth sounded reasonable on paper. But did it work?

Fiscally, it did. Indiana went from a budget deficit to a massive surplus and a AAA credit rating. It is one of the nations fiscally strongest states.

Economically, it was a complete failure. While the state has added population and jobs slightly faster than some other surrounding Rust Belt states, it has been a demographic and economic laggard. Much of the state is shrinking. Its job growth has trailed the nation.

Personal incomes fell from an already low level relative to the nation, making Hoosiers poorer. Wage growth has been nearly the lowest in the nation. Talent was not attracted to the state. In fact, during the 2010s Indiana suffered its worst decade in history for college degree attainment in terms of its performance versus the nation.

The share of high school grads going to college is in decline. Indiana has become a haven for low-wage employers. It is adding mostly jobs for workers with less than a high school diploma in a nation where most job growth has been among the college educated. Many of the states communities continued to physically decay. And social pathologies like opioid addiction exploded.

There have been bright spots. The tech industry in Indianapolis has grown significantly. Life sciences manufacturing is one higher-wage area where Indiana has gotten a number of wins. Yet even the CEO of Indys biggest private employer, Eli Lilly, says the states educational levels arent up to par, and his company has been investing elsewhere.

Indianas conservative voters traded away their social priorities, and in return simply put further behind economically and socially. Again, for them the truce was a double failure.

I dont claim the truce caused bad economic results, or even that Republican leadership is the primary source. I think structural forces beyond the control of the states leaders were more decisive. But the truce certainly didnt make a positive contribution to the economy.

Indiana holds important lessons for both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, it shows that the low taxes/low regulation/libertarianish economic policy approach does not always create growth and prosperity. For both liberals and conservatives, it shows that social policy has far less impact on talent attraction and economic growth than they commonly believe.

When California passed Prop 8 banning gay marriage, was there a mass exodus of people and business out of the state on that account? Not that I saw. In fact, the exodus of people and business has been picking up more recently, as California has become a more solidly progressive environment.

How much credit did Indiana get, and how much high-wage investment did it attract as a result of killing a marriage amendment? None that I saw. Although people still talk endlessly about RFRA even years afterward, the fact that Indiana killed off its marriage amendment is already forgotten. California passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Indiana did not. Think about that.

Or look at Texas, which did pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It also passed an RFRA law, and just passed a very strong anti-abortion bill. None of that seems to have even dented their growth. Facebook even announced a major office expansion in Austin after the abortion law passed.

Texas shows that states can grow while remaining very conservative, while having cities that have their own independent brand and are viewed as progressive. What the state did actually did not harm Texas cities. The Texas-Austin, and Indiana-Indianapolis parallels should be explored in more depth.

This is not to say that Indiana should go hog-wild on social conservative policies or that doing so wouldnt have consequences. Unlike Texas and Florida, which are large, growing states corporations cant ignore, Indiana is a small, stagnant, and weak state that very much can be bullied. A company like Disney, with massive fixed capital investments in Florida, cant walk away from that state.

Conversely, Indianapolis has built its downtown economy around hosting sporting events, and these are extremely mobile. In fact, loss of events has been one of the few things that has happened to cities and states that angered major corporations. Indiana, home to the NCAA, is particularly exposed here. This doesnt just affect Indy either, as Hoosiers love their sports, and many families come to Indianapolis from around the state to take in those events.

But the theories that have animated the GOP governance in the state for the last 17-plus years are wrong. We tried them and they didnt work.

The next time somebody in your state or a Republican in Congress says that suppressing social conservative policies is necessary to ensure economic growth or talent attraction, point them at Indiana and Texas. In light of their results, there is no reason for GOP voters to ever preemptively give up on their cultural policy preferences.

Unfortunately, the lesson Indianas GOP establishment seems to be taking away from this is that they should double down on their existing approach. Again, in their mythos, its rural hilljacks whove been controlling everything and pushing bad policy. So their response is to try to suppress them even further and do more virtue signaling towards DEI, green energy, etc. Look for another attempt to preempt local zoning control over wind and solar projects, for example.

But the natives are getting restless. Opportunistic politicians see the chance to run as Donald Trump-style populists. State Attorney General Todd Rokita, a potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate, has taken this approach. There were23 primary challengesagainst state legislators this year, mostly by more populist conservatives animated by social policy concerns.

As with Trump, it seems possible this will eventually bear fruit. Indeed, we already saw this year the legislature pass multiple socially conservative bills, including constitutional carry (allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit) and the girls sports bill. Indianas governor is constitutionally weak, and his vetoes can be overridden with a simple majority vote. So Holcombs ability to block social conservative legislation is limited. Should Roe v. Wade really be overturned, Indiana would almost certainly pass some sort of strong anti-abortion bill very quickly.

Those who oppose this should take a look in the mirror and acknowledge their own role in making it happen. Just as Trump could never have become the Republican nominee without the failures of the Bush administration, the way for Indianas populist insurgency (to the extent that one exists) has been paved by the double failure of the truce.

Danielss would-be disciples should study the masters playbook more closely. Danielss truce succeeded for him politically because he always made sure to culturally affirm the states people, even if he didnt give them everything they wanted.

He campaigned in an RV. When he traveled around the state, he often went by motorcycle, ate pork tenderloin sandwiches, and stayed in peoples homes instead of hotels. He had a folksy demeanor and never looked down on the people. (He was also able to provide the fiscal austerity and tax reform they wanted, a play that is now exhausted and cant reap political dividends for todays leaders).

Todays metro establishment, as exemplified by Holcomb, loves to poke Hoosier voters in the eye at every opportunity. He loves to do photo-ops with refugees, but when he does something for conservatives like sign a constitutional carry law, he does it quietly. Others increasingly sound like Bill Kristol, George Will, or David French at the national level, using their media access to denigrate the values of average Hoosiers in the press. Daniels would never have made these kinds of unforced errors.

Establishment Republicans should have been aggressively catering to conservative cultural preferences as much as possible. They should have been passing laws for every cultural item not significantly conflicting with the business agenda.

Im not a gun guy myselfin fact, I just shot a rifle and pistol for the very first time ever last weekbut constitutional carry should have happened a long time ago. Holcomb should do a victory tour of the state shooting guns with people or something to celebrate it. They should have been closer to the Florida approach to handling the pandemic. Gov. Ron DeSantis reaped huge gains for his state there.

Much of the woke agenda is extremely unpopular with the public, even in blue states. Look at what happened in Virginia, for example, where Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governors race in what is now a blue state by tapping into discontent with the public schools. The Holcombites could probably learn a lot by looking at Youngkin.

In a democracy, you have to give your voters something of what they want, or somebody else will come along promising to do so. The Indianapolis GOP establishment should have had a positive, prudential cultural agenda that resonated with average Hoosier voters in order to keep them on board with the program. But instead their position has been that the actual Republican voters of the state should be given nothing of his cultural preferences.

Maybe they can fend off the Trumpists. Ive said myself that populist discontent in Indiana still largely manifests itself in the folk libertarian Tea Party register. But if not, they will have no one but themselves to blame for what happens next.

This article is republished, with permission, from the authors Substack.

Read more:

The GOP Pawned Social Conservatism For The Economy And Got Neither - The Federalist

Dear Abby: Im a liberal Democrat and my entire political party is full of insufferable nags. What do I do?!

That was the entire point of New York Times columnist Michelle Goldbergs article this week wherein she fretted that normal Americans are perhaps drifting to the political right because the left has become so indefensibly annoying.

For those who get most of their politics online, this can be what the left looks like a humorless person shaking her head at others insensitivity, she wrote. As a result, an alliance with the countrys most repressive forces can appear, to some, as liberating.

Without saying it outright, Goldberg was getting at the lefts defining qualities today. Its allies have become so miserable, so toxic, so angry and weird that its repulsing voters. They call people racist for any reason at all. They push for the sexualization of children in public schools. And they shut down all discourse that threatens their delicate ideology.

Look whats happening with the Elon Musk-Twitter drama. A billionaire wanted to buy a publishing company not something unheard of and it was an unnecessarily drawn out, messy fight for him to do it because the left wing and Democrats believe they alone dictate what counts as fair discourse.

Goldberg declared the left stagnant, but what she really means is that its miserable. Its stuck in a rut because its activists are singularly motivated by negative emotions now. What do they talk about these days? Persecuting Trump supporters who were in Washington on Jan. 6, Covid as a means of controlling the populace, and equity for anyone who claims to be oppressed (i.e. the Democrat voter base).

When the left becomes grimly censorious, it incubates its own opposition, wrote Goldberg. The internet makes things worse, giving the whole world a taste of the type of irritating progressive sanctimony

She says this like its a problem created by the right, or even unassuming independents who must not be able to distinguish between the online left from the real left. Its not. Its people like Goldberg who wanted to teach children about transgenderism and how it sucks to be white. That people were repulsed by their weird fixations isnt their own fault. Its the fault of the left for being so creepy, unhappy, and maladjusted.

Look at Florida. The hottest controversy there now is whether kindergarten teachers should be able to explain to students what it means to be gender queer. Leftists are adamant that they get to talk about sexual identity with kids. Its dumb. Even a majority of Democrats in that state know its dumb.

Look at the reaction to the district judge in Florida who struck down the airline mask mandate. Leftists are furious that they cant tell people to cover up their noses and mouths anymore (at least for now).

Look at the election of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin. His central campaign theme was that public school kids shouldnt be instilled with the idea that being white is an irredeemable sin. The left nearly needed an exorcism.

Look at your own encounters with these people. The funny thing about left-wingers is that they feel absolutely no reservation about showing up to a social function and popping off with their political opinions on race, sex, and equity.

Any normal person thinks to himself, Id rather not. Leftists dont. They see it as their duty to ensure that everyone knows how they feel (miserable).

You dont like it? Tough.

Goldberg knows her movement is an emotional and mental mess. She just cant bear to break the news.

Theyre always angry. Theyre always upset. Theyve lost their grip. Goldberg could have just said that, but instead, she whined about conservatives and independent Americans who arent into the gross and distasteful things that the movement she belongs to has produced.

In the short term, however, its frightening to think that backlash politics could become somehow fashionable, especially given how stagnant the left appears, she continued.

The left doesnt appear anything. Its undeniably vulgar, and fewer people want to be part of it. Maybe Goldberg should just admit it and stop making excuses for how awful the left-wing Democrat movement is.

Go here to see the original:

It's Not In Your Head: The Left Really Has Become This Miserable - The Federalist