Category Archives: Federalist

Our kids extracurricular activity was at a location not near anyones house. It was also a long one, clocking in at two hours. While theoretically the parents could have gone home after dropping off the kids and returned to pick them up, a husband and wife had a better idea: Why dont we go grab a beer and some queso at the Mexican restaurant just a few blocks away?

While wed interacted a handful of times, wed never hung out as adults. It had always been as parents, which meant our impromptu gathering involved normal getting-to-know-you pleasantries. When it was my turn to answer the question about what I do, I thought for a moment and admitted Im currently between things when it comes to daytime employment, adding, Plus, Im publicly a right-wing nut job, which likely doesnt help me in the current climate.

I wasnt sure how theyd respond, as many of us who work, or in my case worked, in more stereotypical corporate environments have learned to keep our mouths shut. Theres a prevailing sentiment amongst right thinking (which isnt to say right politically) people that everyone they interact with thinks just like them. The deplorables are elsewhere. So, they say things they consider unobjectionable and we let them go, not wanting to risk cancellation.

At this juncture, I must add that I was not canceled from my previous job, sadly, as that may have been helpful to me. Theres no such thing as bad publicity, right? Maybe next time.

Nor was I canceled at the Mexican joint. Instead, it was as if Id just given the secret handshake, Id spoken the password, Id unlocked the message with my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. Turns out, despite assumptions, and we all know the thing about assumptions, we were in the trust tree, able to speak freely. And we did, up until we returned to the facility just in time to retrieve our kids.

Theres a reason we start by not speaking freely, of course, and its mostly because the internet ruins things. People spout off in ways they wouldnt otherwise. Theres a very low risk theyre going to get slugged in the mouth through their screen. Opinions crystallize in excessive directions, like defunding the police or suggesting parents dont have a say in their kids educations or that boys and girls are interchangeable.

Add to that that social media, especially Twitter, has a huge bias toward left-wingers, and it seems like our numbers are smaller than they are. It skews our perception about what sorts of opinions people actually hold.

Now, I have no idea who these parents voted for or what party theyre registered with. It wasnt a purity test moment that any of us passed. Nor am I suggesting we limit ourselves to ideological bubbles based on which team were rooting against. (There are people who actually like one of the parties, but for the most part, we just dislike one of them less than we dislike the other. As to people who actually like politicians, Ive got a Reagan quip for you, but you probably wouldnt laugh because of who said it.)

The conversation that followed me outing myself was mostly about things that we as parents are concerned with, whether it be female role models the media tries to push or Covid policies. Suffice it to say, no one at the table ever had an Im With Her sticker or wants kids in masks.

Ive also had such conversations with those who dislike Republicans more, though those tended to lean more toward confession than philosophical discussion. Apparently, Im a safe space for progressives in which they can admit their heterodox opinions.

But life is not the internet, as my experience shows, and we should all be clamoring for more of these real-life conversations, ones that require us to be honest about what we believe. Well, most of what we believe. Its probably best not to lead with things like If were talking equity, how come the average person doesnt have a tank or even a rocket launcher since the government does?

Thats obviously just something I made up and not a real opinion I hold, by the way. We can discuss it more, though, after a few more trips to the cantina.

In my case, as a contributor to this online publication, I sometimes assume that Im more of a known quantity. In terms of job applications, thats likely true as The Federalist is at the top of my rsum. Id rather be blackballed by closed-minded organizations than quietly be a mercenary for one that loudly wants to make the country my kids will inherit worse. As Im just one man, this will have no effect, but also it really isnt hard to Google me, so being upfront is a time-saver.

But most people you encounter, whether its at the annual HOA meeting or through your kids extracurricular activities, arent going to Google you on a whim. If they do, you should probably avoid them regardless of what you agree on or what they were able to find. Which isnt to say you should turn your politics into your personality. Too many people do that already.

We do need to stop censoring ourselves, though. We cant be afraid to admit what we believe, especially when a surprising amount of people privately agree with us. Because the sooner we all reclaim our voices, loudly and proudly, the better off well be as a people.

And if anyone gives you grief for doing so, for entertaining wrongthink, just tell them youre living your truth. Theyre not allowed to argue with that.

See the original post here:

Why You Should Out Yourself As A Conservative - The Federalist

Watching the screen on a gas pump while filling your vehicles tank is liable to induce a panic attack. Paying for a used car almost requires taking out a second mortgage. Speaking of mortgages, members of the middle class are being priced out of the housing market as home prices march relentlessly upward.Many price increasesare out of control.

How did we get here? A little over a year ago, and in the years before the Covid-19 pandemic, most prices were relatively stable. But more recently, general price inflation is at a 40-year high.

The late economist Milton Friedman helped explain the inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. His explanation helped shape the strong economic recovery of the 1980s, built on the principles of limited government, with sound monetary policy that resulted in a steep decline in what had been rampant, double-digit inflation.

Friedman pointed out that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. The seemingly force majeure is actually a manmade problem, caused by the Federal Reserve (Fed) creating too much money. These principles of money and inflation arent new.

But those lessons are being disregarded by some in the economics profession. People likeStephanie Keltonhave been promotingModern Monetary Theory(MMT), which is virtually a complete reversal of what Friedman espoused and history demonstrated. This theory contends that the federal governments current deficit spending isnt an issue it can, and should, be solved by the Fed creating money to fund it without concern about inflation as long as the U.S. dollar is the worlds reserve currency.

President Joe Biden has not openly endorsed MMT, but hes no fan of Friedman either. Instead, he seems content to have many mostly younger congressional Democrats advocate for MMT, which provides convenient and seemingly academic reasoning for financing more federal spending without explicitly raising taxes. It has a similar political appeal that Keynesianism presented almost a century ago, and MMT is just as flawed.

But proponents of MMT do get one thing correct the Fed can create money to service the debt and avoid a default. But in real terms, meaning adjusting for inflation, this assertion is false. Creating money to service the debt devalues the currency. Investors then receive a lower real return on their holdings of federal debt.

Furthermore, everyone is hurt by inflation, whether they own government bonds or not. Inflation is essentially a tax, as it robs people of their purchasing power at no fault of their own. Everyone who received a 7.5 percent raise over the last year probably thought they would be able to afford more stuff, but they were deceived. Inflation rose just as much so there was no real raise.

But MMT proponents claim that the massive budget deficits are what allow people to save money. Were it not for those deficits, they contend, people would have no cash to save. At first glance, the pandemic seemed to support that. People received transfer payments from the government and saved much of them due to uncertainty. But more recently, peoples savings are being depleted as this dependency on government dries up and prices soar.

Now that inflation is running amok, MMT adherents believetax increases are the primary (if not only) cure. They claim inflation is not caused by the Fed creating too much money, but by people having too much money to spend; taxation will remove that excess liquidity and stop inflation.

However, MMT doesnt explain why its only inflationary when people spend money, but not when the government spends it. Somehow the Fed creating money by purchasing government debt miraculously doesnt bid up prices for scarce resources. The theory sounds more like a belief than science something that must be trusted rather than demonstrated.

Specifically,MMT ideologyis built on mathematical relationships between economic variables like private and public savings and debt rather than a strong theoretical construct, and breaks down quickly when analyzed withsound economic theory. Moreover, these relationships seem to be used to derive a funding mechanism for theirbig-government policy goals, such as a federal jobs guarantee, universal healthcare, and other costly initiatives.

But MMT is not entirely wrong on using taxation to stop inflation. If those taxes are used to pay for deficit spending which really should be done byspending less rather than the Fed financing it, then higher taxes can lower inflation. But that is far too nuanced of an explanation for MMT, which paints in much broader brushstrokes.

Regardless, MMT cannot dispel the hard truths of monetary policy, which is inflation comes from one place the Fed. When the Fed creates money faster than the real economy grows, prices will rise; its that simple.

To alleviate the uncertainty and distortions across the economy of bad policies in Washington, there should be bindingfiscal and monetary rulesbased on sound economics instead of ideology. This should include changing government spending by less than the growth in personal incomes and only changing the money supply to keep prices stable.

Almost two years after President Biden declared Milton Friedman isnt running the show anymore, the late economist is clearly the one with the last laugh. Perhaps next time, the president will think twice before speaking ill of the dead.

E.J. Antoni, Ph.D., is an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a senior fellow with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and was the associate director for economic policy at the White Houses Office of Management and Budget from 2019 to 2020.

E. J. Antoni and Vance Ginn

View post:

Inflation Comes From The Fed, Contra Modern Monetary Theory - The Federalist

U. S. History: From the Colonial Period to 1817

THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM: FEDERALISTS V. REPUBLICANS

POLITICAL PARTIES

POLITICAL PARTIES are organizations that mobilize voters on behalf of a COMMON SET OF INTERESTS, concerns, and goals. In many countries political parties play a crucial part in the democratic process. The functions of political parties include:

Formulating political agendas

Selecting candidates

Conducting election campaigns

Managing the work of elected representatives

Providing the means by which people can have a voice in government.

1st POLITICAL PARTIES

FEDERALISTS

REPUBLICANS

Constituency

Merchants, bankers, manufacturers from New England and the middle-Atlantic states.

Artisans, shopkeepers, small farmers, and large plantation owners from the South and from western regions at the nation.

Leadership

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

THOMAS JEFFERSON

View of Human Nature

Hamilton, a self-made man, distrusted the people. Man, he thought, is naturally selfish, unreasonable, and violent.

Jefferson, born to wealth and social position, thought that if men are given the opportunity, they are naturally decent and reasonable.

Attitude Toward Government

Believed in a highly CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT as a means of keeping order.

Saw the common people as unable to govern themselves.

Believed that government should be as far removed from the people as possible.

Favored a strong federal government and limited powers for the states.

Advocated a strong executive department and strong courts to maintain order and insure justice.

Favored a standing army.

Wanted to imitate British aristocracy (rule by the rich) without a king.

Willing to censor the press for political power.

Believed in a MINIMUM OF GOVERNMENT to safeguard the rights of the people.

Saw the common people as able to govern themselves.

Believed that government should be as close to the people as possible.

Favored local government over national because it was closer to the people.

Favored Congress over the other branches of government because it best reflected the popular will.

Opposed standing armies because a military leader might seize control of the government.

Wanted more democracy than in the British parliament.

Favored freedom of speech & press.

Wanted greater involvement by the people through lower voting qualifications.

Favored reducing government interference by decreasing and number of federal officeholders.

View of the Constitution

Held LOOSE CONSTRUCTIONIST view that the Federal government had implied powers not listed in the Constitution (i.e., the Federal government had all the powers not expressly forbidden it by the Constitution).

Held STRICT CONSTRUCTIONSIT view that the Federal governments powers should be limited in favor of states rights (i.e., the Federal government had only the powers expressly stated in the Constitution).

Foreign Policy Perspective

Favored Great Britain in culture and trade.

Distrusted Great Britain and wanted closer relations with France because it had just been through a democratic revolution.

The Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong national government. Reading broadly into the Constitution (loose constructionism), they argued that government power should be used to promote economic development through the creation of a national bank and the construction of federally-financed roads, harbors, and bridges. Federalists believed that America's economic future depended on the cultivation of strong commercial ties with Great Britain. And they argued that America's emerging manufacturing sector should be encouraged through protectionist measures such as tariffs.

The Republicans, also called Democratic-Republicans, were led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They supported a weaker national government restricted in its powers by a narrow reading of the Constitution (strict constructionism). They feared that federal intervention in the economy would benefit only a few wealthy northeasterners, and they believed that agriculture, not manufacturing, should remain the country's economic base. Republicans opposed closer ties to Britain and tended to sympathize with the French in their revolution and subsequent war with the British.

While the Federalists dominated the government through the 1790s, they rapidly declined after 1800. Thomas Jefferson's election to the presidency was bolstered by Republican victories in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Federalists remained powerful enough to obstruct certain Republican measures for about a decade, but they were not strong enough to prevent the United States from going to war against Britain in 1812a war the Federalists vehemently opposed. Their continuing opposition to the war, even after it began, severely damaged their viability as a national party. When the United States survived its war with Britain and won tremendous victories at Baltimore and New Orleans, the Federalists' reputation was shotand their national political clout was over.

For the next decadea period sometimes called "The Era of Good Feelings"the United States was essentially a one-party nation; the Republicans governed with little opposition. But factions within the party soon emerged, and these factionslabeled National Republicans and Democratic Republicanseventually morphed into the dominant parties that would define the second party era, lasting from 1828 to the mid-1850s.

View original post here:

Democratic-Republicans vs Federalist - United States History

As Virginia rounds the corner in its first session of 2022, legislation passed in the states pro-life House faces major challenges in the Senate. Although Virginia ushered in a pro-life governor this January, the Senate is still controlled by pro-abortion Democrats.

Last Tuesdays crossover day marked a turning point in the 60-day session, as bills passed in the House and Senate moved down the hall for further votes. The Republican-controlled Virginia House passed HB 304, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, sponsored by Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper. The bill requires an abortionist to provide life-saving treatment for a child born alive after a failed abortion. It passed 52-48 along party lines.

Del. Dave LaRock, R-Loudoun, filed a mirror bill, HB 1349, and said he expects Senate Democrats to recognize the necessity of the basic human rights measure following public fallout from former Gov. Ralph Northams radical abortion interview in 2019. Northam spoke in favor of infant death without any attempt at medical intervention if an abortion failed.

That comment by then-governor Northam shocked the world by revealing that Northam was among the most radically pro-abortion advocates who would allow a living, breathing baby to be denied proper care, treated as medical waste, and left to die, LaRock said. I am hopeful there will be enough Democrats who see infanticide as going too far. If that happens, the law will go to [Republican] Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin and I am confident that, given the opportunity, he will sign it.

Currently, 35 states have passed similar legislation. Its one of two main life issues before the Virginia legislature this session, along with the parameters for informed consent before women obtain an abortion.

Once a baby is born aliveevery possible medical care should be provided. Why isnt that obvious to everyone? said John Seeds, an OB-GYN and former department chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University. At birth, they become a legal citizen and appropriate care should be required.

The Republican-majority House also passed the Informed Consent/Womens Right to Know bill Tuesday, introduced by Del. Karen Greenhalgh, R-Virginia Beach, to restore requirements removed by pro-abortion legislators in 2020. The bill would require abortion providers to present women with fully accurate, written information regarding the abortion procedure, available pregnancy support resources, and their rights prior to an abortion.

Any woman contemplating abortion should be provided all information about the procedure including short- and long-term complications and the nature of the infant being aborted, Seeds commented. Otherwise, she is making a decision without all the needed information.

The first pro-life bill to make it to the House docket in three years, HB 212 requires basic informed consent previously in place in Virginia.

Helping mothers and fathers make informed decisions, which could include adoption for unwanted infants, will likely result in a win-win situation, said LaRock, sponsor of several pro-life bills this session. Mothers are going to avoid the guilt that may come with the irreversible decision to abort her baby. Babies find loving homes.

Yet the Democrat-controlled Senate has proven a tough battleground for pro-lifers, with losses and wins in the sessions first 30 days. Sen. Amanda Chase, R-Chesterfield, described Senate Republicans and Democrats as sitting on either side of a chasm on major issues.

You might get a couple of bills I call do nothing bills that are going to pass, but significant legislation thats going to have meaningful impactits going to be hard to come by this session, she said.

Chase introduced legislation to restrict abortions to 20 weeks of gestation in Virginia, based on medical evidence that an unborn child experiences immense pain by that point. The pain capable bill would allow for terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life or health were at risk, with the intent of giving the unborn child the best chance to survive.

Sen. Siobahn Dunnavant, R-Henrico, a licensed OB-GYN in the state, provided strong testimony in favor of SB 710, which was also supported by Youngkin, Chase said. The bill was defeated in the Senate Education and Health Committee late last week.

This bill was really a bill that showed compassion on the unborn, Chase said. Its a humanity bill. Its recognizing a baby can feel pain and that we as a society need to be humane to those babiesAn unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock.

Surrogacy law in the Commonwealth currently allows a couple contracting with a surrogate to require an abortion of a disabled unborn child or to abort multiples. Sen. Mark J. Peake, R-Lynchburg, sponsored SB 163 to prohibit the practice.

This fixes a very bad problem in Virginia, to get [the state] out of the business of abortion under our surrogacy laws, said Olivia Gans-Turner, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life. The law is so old most legislators didnt know it was there until 2020, when a bill prohibiting it died in committee under a Democrat-majority House. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of the bill this session.

An assisted suicide legalization bill introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate failed to pass the Senate on a tie vote. Budgetary items, to include a Hyde Amendment bill limiting taxpayer funding of abortions in the state, will be considered later in the session.

Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband.e who lives in Virginia.

Read more from the original source:

Virginia Democrats Vote For Allowing Babies Who Survive Abortions To Die - The Federalist

West Virginia Republican Treasurer Riley Moore axed his states relationship with BlackRock last month over the $10 trillion investment firms dual loyalty to Chinese interests and woke capitalism.

As the states chief financial officer and chairman of the Board of Treasury Investments, I have a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are managed in a responsible, financially sound fashion which reflects the best interests of our state and country, and I believe doing business with BlackRock runs contrary to that duty, Moore said in a press release at the time.

Now the colossal Wall Street firm is void of oversight for the states investment fund, a liquid account worth approximately $1.5 billion. While it might not be much money to BlackRock, Moore tells The Federalist, its a hell of a lot for the people of West Virginia, and far too much to park with an investment firm infected by corporate wokeism working to defraud the states more than 1.7 million residents.

Despite holding $85 billion in coal assets as of January last year, BlackRock has emphasized its commitment to reaching net-zero carbon emissions, a near-term pledge incompatible with a flourishing energy industry reliant on instantaneous power provided by fossil fuels. The commitment while fostering Chinese investment has prompted well-founded skepticism about whether BlackRock has the best interests of its clients at stake.

Last week, the educational nonprofit Consumers Research unveiled a multi-million-dollar campaign to expose BlackRocks close ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The watchdog published a new website on BlackRocks CEO, WhoIsLarryFink.com, and debuted new ads for TV and radio complemented by mobile billboards in New York City, where the firm is headquartered.

Larry Fink and BlackRock are really delivering a one-two punch to the American economy, Consumers Research Executive Director Will Hild told The Federalist. One the right hand theyre using the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) scam to hamper American companies and make it harder to serve American consumers, on the left hand theyre funneling billions of dollars to the Chinese communist owned business to help them build the Chinese economy.

The campaign comes on the heels of a letter Hild sent in December to 10 governors, including West Virginia, warning both consumers and governments about BlackRocks relationship with China, where the leading investment firm has made cultivating Chinese assets a priority. Fink admitted that much in his 2020 letter to shareholders at the onset of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.

I continue to firmly believe China will be one of the biggest opportunities for BlackRock over the long term, both for asset managers and investors, despite the uncertainty and decoupling of global systems were seeing today, Fink wrote in a passage now deleted from the letter currently on the companys website. By August of the same year, BlackRock was awarded the first entirely foreign-owned mutual fund operating in China.

BlackRocks funneling of billions in U.S. capital to China carries with it risks not present in other markets, risks that threaten the large wagers the company is putting on steep returns from the Middle Kingdom, Hild warned governors late last year. Chinese firms are not held to the same transparency standards as their western counterparts, so foreign investors are often hard pressed to appreciate the true risk profile of what theyre investing in.

More than $75 billion in pension funds among the states reporting such data, meanwhile, remain in BlackRocks hands, according to Consumers Research.

Some conservative policymakers have begun to heed Hilds warning, motivated also by Wall Streets growing ideological hostility to fossil fuels. Beyond Moores efforts in West Virginia, lawmakers in Texas and Florida have also made moves to counteract BlackRocks undue influence.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently moved to strip proxy vote power over state finances from companies that foster investment in China while managing taxpayer dollars. That would include BlackRock, which oversees billions from Floridas pensions and investment funds. According to Bloomberg, BlackRock held $227 million in a fund focused on Chinese markets in late June.

The state pension plan has also invested in separate private equity and investment funds with exposure to China in particular, Bloomberg reported.

Further west in Texas, the company hired a team of lobbyists in Austin to protect its more than $20 billion handled as legislators prepare to follow Moores lead in withdrawing state business from the New York firm. After years of railing against fossil fuels in the name of politically correct investment practices, corporate executives are now engaged in double-speak to protect its access to public funds.

In January, Alex Epstein, the founder of Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, reported company leaders sent a memo reassuring lawmakers who govern the top oil producer in the country of BlackRocks commitment to back the industry.

We will continue to invest in and support fossil fuel companies, including Texas fossil fuel companies, read the memo sent at the start of the year. Weeks later, Fink wrote again of the CEOs desire for BlackRock to play a prominent role in achieving net-zero emissions.

Its not just BlackRock beginning to feel the heat from proactive lawmakers moving to protect their constituents tax dollars from being used against them. All banks that spurn fossil fuels run the risk of alienating their relationships with state governments. In November, Moore led a coalition of 15 states pledging to park $600 billion in taxpayer assets in other institutions than those that bar investment in the industry.

Just as each state represented in this letter is unique in its governing laws and economy, our actions will take different forms, they wrote. However, the overarching objective of our actions will be the same to protect our states economies, jobs, and energy independence from these unwarranted attacks on our critical industries.

While Moores $1.5 billion pulled from BlackRock last month might not be a sizeable figure for a $10 trillion-dollar firm, $600 billion remains nothing to blink at.

Other Republicans leading major oil-producing states, such as state treasurers in Ohio and Oklahoma, have remained apathetic as the movement grows to deter Wall Street financial firms from weaponizing taxpayer dollars against American taxpayers.

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.

Original post:

Lawmakers Are Waking Up To BlackRock's Dual Loyalty, And Taking Action - The Federalist

The only way to understand the actions of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the past two weeks is that he wants the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, which so far have been entirely peaceful, to descend into a violent confrontation between protesters and police.

Everything Trudeau has done, from his initial dismissive remarks about the protesters being a small, fringe minority with unacceptable views, to his ongoing refusal to meet with them, to the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act this week, has served to escalate the situation in Ottawa and increase the likelihood that it ends in some kind of violence.

Consider the draconian measures Trudeaus government is now pursuing. The protests, while certainly inconvenient and even onerous to the residents of Ottawa, are obviously not an existential threat to Canada. They are not even a national emergency according to the Emergencies Acts own definition: an urgent and critical situation that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.

No reasonable person thinks thats what the protests in Ottawa are. The Canadian Civil Liberties Associationhas saidthe federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act, and that invoking it threatens our democracy and our civil liberties. According to some recent polls, a not insignificant number of Canadians agree.

Yet Trudeau is bringing down the full force of the federal government to quash the Freedom Convoy. Under the Emergencies Act, protesters can have their bank accounts frozen, and so can people who simply donate to protesters. Crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers must cease all services to anyone they suspect might be participating in illegal blockades, and report it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Truckers can have their commercial and private drivers licenses revoked, and can lose their insurance and their vehicles.

Even more ominously, Canadian government officials are now warning parents who bring their children to illegal assemblies, or even provide food or fuel to protesters, that they could not only face jail time and steep fines, they could lose custody of their children. On Wednesday, the Childrens Aid Society of Ottawaput out a statementurging parents at the demonstrations to make alternate care arrangements, should they become unable to care for their children following potential police action.

The threat here is obvious: if you protest, well arrest you and take your children away. Trudeau has effectively weaponized Canadas version of child protective services to suppress legitimate political dissent. What do you think is going to happen when the police start trying to remove children from their parents? If it were your child, what would you do?

All of this could come to a head in the coming days. Police in Ottawa have begun handing out notices to protesters that they must leave the area now or face arrest. According tosome reports, if police want to clear the streets of Ottawa, theyre going to have to get it done in the next 48 hours, because thousands more protesters are expected to arrive in the Canadian capital this coming weekend in what could be the largest demonstration yet.

But its unclear how exactly the authorities are going to clear the trucks. Towing these semi-trailers is going to take heavy equipment, and so far local towing companies have refused government requests to tow the Freedom Convoy trucks. The military would be able to move them, and Trudeaus invocation of the Emergencies Act enables the use of the military for such an operation. But that would create a disturbing spectacle at the least, and at worst provoke a confrontation that could turn violent.

If that happens,Trudeau will bear the blame. He has set up a situation where violence, or at least some kind of forcible crackdown by Canadian law enforcement against protesters, is becoming inevitable. Indeed, how else are we to understand Trudeaus statement earlier this week that the protests, which have so far been totally peaceful, are in his judgment no longer non-violent?

At no point, even after drawing widespread criticism for his mishandling of the situation, has Trudeau shown any sign of compromise, or done anything to give the protesters an off-ramp. Even as provincial governments have eased or rescinded Covid mandates and restrictions in the face of sharply declining case numbers and hospitalizations, Trudeau is holding fast. As Eric Kaufmannoted this week in the Telegraph, Trudeaus hypocrisy in these matters is blatant:

Contrast his combative posture towards the truckers with his gentle approach to protesters who would seem to share his philosophy. When Left-wing arsonists burned some 30 Catholic churches over a false claim that mass graves had been discovered near a former residential school for indigenous Canadians, Trudeau called the violence understandable. When indigenous protesters and their allies blocked rail lines and pipelines over a longer period than the trucker convoy, Trudeau patiently called for dialogue and mutual respect.

The Canadian prime ministers reactions to these events tell us that he condones actual political violence and disruptive blockades, as long he agrees with the people who are doing it. The truckers, though, have gotten neither dialogue nor respect from Trudeau and his administration. After all, to Trudeau theyre just a bunch of racists and misogynists with unacceptable views.

On Wednesday, he doubled down on the name-calling, responding to a conservative Jewish MP that Conservative Party members stand with people who wave swastikas, and stand with people who wave the Confederate flag (For that quip, Trudeau earned a rebuke from the speaker of the House of Commons, who reminded him to use words that are not inflammatory.)

At this point, if youre a protester in Canada, or someone who supports the protests, or even someone who thinks the protesters are wrong but the government has gone too far, the message from Trudeau is clear: We will not listen to you, we will not compromise with you, and if you dont comply with our orders, we will ruin you.

That is a recipe for violence, and Trudeau knows it. He wants to make an example out of these truckers because deep down he is an illiberal man with an intolerant worldview.

These protesters have the wrong views, so they dont deserve the dialogue and mutual respect afforded to left-wing protesters. For all his virtue-signaling about diversity, Trudeau doesnt really believe in Canada as a pluralistic society where people of different views and ways of life can live together in peace. He believes in a society where the little people, the people with the wrong views, do as theyre told.

The thing is, most of these protesters have done just that. The vast majority of the truckers are vaccinated. They have complied with some of the most severe Covid mandates and restrictions in the western world for two years now. They did all that was asked of them, and when they finally got fed up with it they organized a peaceful protest.

And for that, Trudeau is trying to crush them.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Here is the original post:

Trudeau Doesn't Want To End The Protests Peacefully. He Wants Violence - The Federalist

As Republicans consider who ought to be tasked with responding to President Bidens State of the Union address on March 1, they have the luxury of an obvious, unobjectionable choice whose message speaks to the moment, and to their priorities in 2022: Virginias Lieutenant Governor, Winsome Sears.

The San Francisco school board recalls are just the latest sign that American voters are fed up with the state of things in almost every arena, but particularly when it comes to school closures, mask and vaccine mandates, and the racial politicization of education.

They are tired of a White House and Democratic leadership in Washington which has spent the past year squabbling with its own flanks, left and center, and pretending despite all evidence that it is intolerant intransigent insurgency-minded Republicans who are the problem not inflation.

The White Houses massive miscalculations over the past year are obvious. Instead of taking the win with Operation Warp Speeds vaccines and using their wide availability as a path to get life, schools, and government policy back to normal as soon as possible, they doubled down on performative emergencies as a justification for insane policy packages no one understood. They doubled down on the Sunday show musings of Anthony Fauci, the arbitrary guidance of Rochelle Walensky, and the whiplash recommendations of their supposed experts at an alphabet soup of agencies. They doubled down on bureaucratic mandates and pressure campaigns that ran into the harsh reality of the Constitution.

No one of prominence to this point has been fired, not Fauci, not Walensky, not even the political hack they have running the Department of Health and Human Services. Even as retirements mount and the internal polling indicates Democrats have dramatically undermined their hopes for November, the Ron Klain White House just keeps on chugging toward that iceberg. They cant walk it back, you see theyre too invested in the permanent pandemic now.

The thing about the political sunk cost fallacy is that eventually, it sinks.

And thats exactly what is happening, most prominently in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where Glenn Youngkin, Winsome Sears, and Jason Miyares were swept into office as Terry McAuliffe danced onstage with Randi Weingarten. Republicans won on the basis of all of the above but particularly, they won by prioritizing what the Democrats and their collaborators in teachers unions, school administrators, and corrupt media did and continue to do to Americas children as an issue. It was a multiethnic slate elected by a multiethnic electorate, with a particular outpouring of support from Asian and immigrant communities who reject the lefts woke agenda and want to get their kids learning again.

Sears is an exceptional voice on these issues. She also is a model for a movement, not just confined to Republican circles, that will stand up directly against false accusations of racism and bigotry in American life. Instead of cowering and begging forgiveness, we ought to reject the false premise of racism, and have the courage to stand up against it, even when it is relentlessly repeated by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.

(Theyll even do it with progressives in San Francisco just look at those evil Asian immigrants who dont care about racial injustice!)

In advancing this argument courageously, despite all the additional viciousness of the attacks one must face as a woman who is strongly conservative, Sears serves as a model of fortitude others should follow. Plus, she does it with style.

Responses to the State of the Union address are typically forgettable, and occasionally only remembered for infamous reasons. But one exception is that of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2010. He spoke to the chamber of the Virginia House of Delegates, benefitting from an active audience and a clear contrast to President Obamas agenda, representing a precursor to the Tea Party wave that came to Washington in 2010.

Theres one more reason that this years response should be Sears: it would serve as an implicit acknowledgment that Republicans arent going to take their eye off the ball for the 2022 midterms by getting sucked into 2024 too early. Much as Ron DeSantis is the belle of the ball at the moment, there are more of State of the Unions (probably from Joe Biden) that hell have the opportunity to respond to in due course.

The Democrat-complicit media acknowledges his existence, and works on a daily basis to tear him down. But when it comes to Winsome Sears? Theyd rather pretend she, and Americans like her, dont exist at all.

Dont let them.

See the rest here:

GOP Should Ask Winsome Sears To Respond To The State Of The Union - The Federalist

The trial of two Finnish Christians for publicly stating mainstream religious teachings that reserve sex only for heterosexual marriage is heading towards a judgment scheduled for March 30. The case could end up hitting Finlands Supreme Court and even the European Court of Human Rights, which means its outcome could affect the rights of religious believers and political dissidents across the world.

Member of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola have been prosecuted now for nearly three years after Rasanen tweeted a picture of Bible verses in June 2019. Complaints about this tweet led to her prosecution under Finlands hate crimes laws.

The government investigation of Rasanens tweet uncovered a theological pamphlet she wrote and Pojhola published in 2004, for which they have both been charged. The booklet states classic Christian teachings about sex as reserved only for marriage, and defining marriage as comprising only one man and one woman for life.

The teachings concerning marriage and sexuality in the Bible arise from love to ones neighbor, Rasanen said in a Feb. 17 statement. This case is about whether it is allowed in Finland to cite the Bible and to agree with it in topics that go against the tide and challenge the current ethos and thinking.

Oral arguments in the case wrapped up this week on Valentines Day. On Feb. 17, a Finnish court also heard a related request from the prosecutor to force a Finnish radio show to take offline a two-minute audio clip of Rasanen speaking about marriage in 2019.

Being criminally charged for voicing my deeply held beliefs in a country that has such deep roots in freedom of speech and religion feels unreal, Rasanen told The Federalist.

On Feb. 14, Pojholas lawyer Jyrki Anttinen argued if the prosecution wins, the ability of pastors to preach the gospel is effectively over in Finland without criminal sanction, said Lorcan Price, a lawyer assisting the case for Alliance Defending Freedom International who attended the Helsinki hearing. An Irishman, Price listened with the aid of a Finnish translator.

The Finnish prosecutor who brought the case is seeking a fine of one-third of Rasanens annual income, the public erasure of documents and audio shes made on the subject, and a financial penalty against the small religious organization Pohjola runs, the Luther Foundation. If the two Christians are convicted, the steepest possible penalty could be two years in prison.

Ive been to his headquarters, the Mission Diocese of the Lutheran Evangelical Church, Price noted. Its fairly utilitarian. Its not luxurious theres no marble foyer with a fountain and receptionist. Theres a kitchen and a communal area and Bishop Juhanas office.

Theyre a breakaway from the main Lutheran church, Price continued. In fact, Pohjola was expelled from the state church in 2014, also for affirming classic Christian theology about differences between the two sexes. He was elected bishop by his growing missionary congregations last year. The main church abandoned the teachings but got to keep all of the buildings. Thats what we have here. Hes in fairly basic accommodation, lets say. I think anything of their income is outrageous.

Its not clear Finlands hate crimes law even bans controversial speech, but Finlands top prosecutor is arguing that it does. If the prosecutor wins the case, it would mark an unprecedented expansion of identity laws that exist in most European countries, many U.S. cities and states, and that U.S. Democrats are trying to make a nationwide law in The Equality Act.

The prosecutor believes the law means you cant preach the gospel in public, but some believe it means you cant directly incite violence, Price noted.

The charges against the two Christians include an attempt to criminalize statements they made years before the law being used to prosecute them passed. Thats the only charge against Pohjola, and one of three charges against Rasanen.

The fact that Bishop Juhana is even in this trial is Kafkaesque, its insane, Price said. Hes being charged with something he did as the head of a charitable foundation, the Luther Foundation, that publishes theological documents, for a document he didnt write that expresses mainstream, orthodox Christian teaching Finding that Bishop Juhana as a publisher broke the law would damage the rights of publishers to publish things that are controversial and as a church leader [would] damage his ability to publish and evangelize and disseminate in public Christian teaching.

The Federalist interviewed Pohjola in person in November, and Rasanen via Zoom last week. As their case concluded arguments this week, U.S. members of Congress reiterated their public concerns about its implications for human rights both worldwide and in the United States.

Its likely their case wont be over even after the court decision likely out at the end of March, said Price. Thats because both parties are likely to appeal if they lose.

If the court convicts Rasanen or Pohjola, or both, their lawyers will definitely appeal, Price said. The Finnish prosecutor also seems likely to appeal if the two Christians are not convicted, as she has appealed similar cases attempting to criminalize politically incorrect views, he said.

The Finnish legal system allows prosecutors to appeal if they dont win a conviction in their first round at court. In common law countries like England and the United States, usually only those convicted of crimes can appeal, not their prosecutors, except under unusual circumstances, Price said.

I think thats very burdensome for those accused, he noted. So you can go through multiple levels of the court and be vindicated at each level and the prosecutor can keep dragging the accused through the courts.

All this means Rasanen and Pohjolas cases could very well end up in Finlands Supreme Court, where if they lose they could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, from where Price spoke to The Federalist by Zoom on Tuesday. That means their case could affect how all of Europe treats Christian doctrines and free speech more broadly.

Like the United States, Europe has been increasingly restricting political and religious speech, especially in international courts against countries seen as unfashionably conservative, such as Hungary and Poland, Price said. This case therefore comes at a crucial time as speech rights are receiving less government support than has been long standard in the West.

Before this case, Rasanen and Pohjolas theological booklet was printed years ago in a few hundred copies and mostly used within tiny Lutheran churches. Their prosecution has caused it to be distributed around the world and translated into several other languages, Price said.

This obscure little pamphlet has made its way around the world thanks to the efforts of the prosecutor to shut it down, he noted.

Being targeted for their faith has given Rasanen and Pohjola a global platform for preaching the Christian message of forgiveness for all sins and the deep importance to Christians of the Bible as the very Word of God. Rasanen told The Federalist that because of her case, European media are quoting Bible verses and people are debating their meaning. She says shes received emails from people saying her case has prompted them to start reading the Bible, which the pastors wife and grandmother of nine says shes read repeatedly since age 16.

Rasanen spoke to the huge worldwide audience of Fox News this week about her case. Political and religious leaders around the world have also expressed support for Rasanen and Pohjolas rights to free speech and religious exercise, which are legally recognized in European human rights agreements.

Many people and journalists around the world regularly ask me: What keeps you going, from where do you find the courage to speak up?' Rasanen told The Federalist. My motivation comes from the Bible and from my will to have an impact on the society. A conviction based on the Christian faith is more than a [superficial] opinion. The early Christians did not renounce their faith in lions caves, why should I then renounce my faith in a court room? I believe it is my calling and honor to defend the foundational rights and freedoms at this point of my life.

While some people have been scared into silence about their beliefs because of this prosecution, Rasanen said, its also prompted 1,000 Finns to stand in front of Parliament holding their Bibles up to collectively show strong support for the freedom of Gods Word. The Finnish Association for Freedom of Speech and Religion was also founded last June to support the legal defense for this case and possibly others.

In one sense the prosecutor has frightened part of the population into being quiet and in another it has drawn huge attention to the issue, Price said. We cant underestimate the chilling effect of these prosecutions. She [the prosecutor] cannot but regard this as at least a partial success that sending a tweet about the Bible could result in the police coming to your door. Not everyone has the grit and determination of Paivi.

Thats our concern with these hate speech laws. It denudes society of the opportunity to hear something that can be shocking and provocative but is also a different perspective and for Christians founded on a fundamental truth of scripture.

Follow this link:

How A Trial In Finland Could Have Worldwide Effects On Persecution - The Federalist

Vice President Kamala Harriss excuse for not having visited the southern U.S. border last year during the Biden administrations ongoing border crisis was and I havent been to Europe.

Now Harris is on official White House business in Europe, thousands of miles away from Bidens border crisis, to bring peace and security to the borders of Ukraine. While border officials struggle to keep up with the 153,941 illegal aliens they encountered pouring across the U.S.-Mexico border in January, Harris is busy in Germany talking with other European leaders on how to bolster unity as concern grows about Russian troops at Ukraines border.

Biden tapped Harris as his border czar early last year, but it took her months to make a trek to observe the crisis her open-borders administration created. Initially, the VP claimed she was focused on the root causes of the migration influx and wasnt in a rush to visit despite the growing humanitarian crisis and a record-breaking number of illegal aliens getting arrested trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border each month. When former President Donald Trump announced he was making a border trip himself, Harris quickly jumped on the bandwagon.

Harris finally arrived in El Paso in June of last year but failed to do much other than defend why exactly it took her so long to get there in the first place.

Well, its not my first trip, Harris said. Ive been to the border many times. So, the important aspect of this visit is leading this visit after the work that we did in Guatemala. Ive said back in March Im going to come to the border. This is not a new plan, but the reality of it is that we have to deal with causes, and we have to deal with the effects.

Now, just a few weeks in to the Ukraine-Russia tension, Harris is scrambling to lead the U.S. delegation at the Munich Security Conference in what some Democrat-fawning corporate media outlets have labeled the most critical foreign trip of her vice presidency.

While Harris threatens to take corrective actions to ensure there will be severe consequences against Russia if it invades Ukraine, she is silent on the extremely vulnerable U.S.-Mexico border ahead of peak illegal migration months and offers no plan of punishment for the human and drug smugglers exacerbating the crisis.

Instead of offering a plan of action or even reassurance to border states, which have to deal with the aftereffects of the Biden administrations border negligence including increased illicit drug trafficking, Harris is parading around Europe calling attention to the problems of other nations while she ignores her own.

Harris is already extremely unpopular with Americans, and her refusal to acknowledge or address the border problems in the U.S. while actively advocating for the security of foreign borders is an even bigger slap in the face to voters who naively believed the Biden administration would make things better.

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 @jordangdavidson.

View original post here:

Harris Heads To Secure Ukraine's Border But Won't Protect Her Own - The Federalist

DENVER A group of major outdoor retailers pledged to continue their boycott of Utah Monday after the states Republican leadership attempted to bring back a major trade show following a five-year hiatus.

Outdoor Retailer, North Americas largest trade show in the industry, was moved from Salt Lake City to Denver, Colo., in 2017 as a form of corporate protest against President Donald Trumps decision to reinstate lands in south Utah to proper agency ownership at GOP state lawmakers request. President Barack Obama had previously exploited the Antiquities Act to illegally create quasi-national parks at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.

The biannual trade show that historically brought Salt Lake City 50,000 visitors and $45 million in revenue is reportedly weighing a move back to Utah once its contract expires in Denver, with its last Colorado event this summer, according to the Associated Press. Other options on the list include Anaheim, Calif., Houston, Las Vegas, and Orlando, Fla.

More than two dozen outdoor recreation companies, however, including Patagonia, REI, and North Face, promised in an open letter sponsored by The Conservation Alliance representing another 270 companies to collectively boycott the show if it moves back to Utah.

Our position on the location of the Outdoor Retailer trade show remains clear and unchanged: The show belongs in a state whose top officials value and seek to protect public lands, said Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert, whose company led the initial protest in 2017.

While the corporate activism is ostensibly dedicated to the protection of public lands, the premise of the revolt has far more to do with politics than environmental stewardship.

The original boycott that provoked the trade shows move to Colorado took aim at land policy that did far more to protect the Utah monuments than did prior administrations weaponizing a 1906 law to paint a false perception of protection.

When Trump trimmed the boundaries of the two monuments expanded under Obama, the Republican administration did so to comply with the Antiquities Act mandate to protect relics using the smallest area compatible while also enhancing opportunities for adequate maintenance and visitation. The area at Bears Ears alone reinstated under Obama-era protections by President Joe Biden larger than neighboring Zion and Bryce Canyon combined. Biden also restored the wide-ranging monument boundaries at Grand Staircase.

The magnifying glass placed on the pair of monuments by Obama also drew in spectators to sites not equipped to sustainably handle the influx of visits.

What they intended to protect they ended up drawing in thousands of people and doing more resource damage in the process, Casey Hammond, aformer Interior official in the Trump administration who coordinated management following boundary reduction told The Federalist. After Obama and allies made Bears Ears into a target, we had to find ways to accommodate the amount of people and keep them from damaging more resources.

Contrary to popular belief waved by Patagonia and North Face to virtue signal, monumental status fails to afford public lands already legally protected with the locked-up designation environmentalists tend to paint. They merely make it more difficult to cultivate responsible stewardship with barriers to infrastructure for proper visitation.

Monument status, for example, cannot stop the development of a mine if the rights already exist. Hammond told The Federalist that while in the process of monument reduction, exactly zero extractive industry reached out with any interest to develop. If they did, especially at this point, theyd face prohibitive obstacles from opposition and regulation.

Considering the retail industrys incentives for residents to Opt Outside, its odd the corporate retailers are especially opposed to the restoration of Utah lands to management and oversight to proper agencies better able to enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation. The politics, however, have blinded far-left activists from acknowledging that policy makers with an R next to their names could do anything to responsibly benefit the environment. Legacy outlets responsible for cultivating the tribalist mindset have even said that much.

Retailers such as North Face, though, love to capitalize on the virtue signal:

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:

Patagonia And North Face's Boycott Of Utah Is Not About Conservation - The Federalist