Category Archives: Federalist

Hubris invites nemesis, which explains a lot about fights within the conservative movement. Or as National Reviews Michael Brendan Dougherty recently put it, Intra-conservative discourse is mostly just spiking the football before youve reached midfield.

A little success often swells heads, and this arrogance sabotages future efforts. Unfortunately, the so-called New Rightled by writers and public intellectuals such as Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen, and consisting of a loose confederation of post-liberals, national conservatives, and othersis at risk of this.

The New Right has energy, ideas (many of them good) and momentum, but its practical political influence is still minor. It will be handicapped if its boosters indulge in hubris and ingratitude. Unfortunately, some of them are.

For example, Josh Hammer of Newsweek recently rhetorically asked, What exactly can modern Fusionism claim to have successfully conserved? This disdain for his conservative forebearers may be cathartic for Hammer, but it is not persuasive. The fusionist coalitionthe alliance between social conservatives, free marketers, and cold warriorshad its failures, but it also conserved quite a lot.

The Soviet Union is on the ash heap of history, which is kind of a big deal. The collapse of the Iron Curtain also restored national sovereignty to many peoples, including the Poles and the Hungarians, whose governments are much admired by the New Right.

Domestically, Second Amendment rights are far more robust and secure. Perhaps relatedly, crime rates dropped for several decades, with major cities becoming livable again. Taxes were lowered and welfare was reformed. The Equal Rights Amendment is dead.

Even in areas where conservatives now feel besieged, there have been successes. Religious freedom advocates have won substantial victories in court, including the Zelman decision and the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in response to the Smith decision, which was the late Justice Antonin Scalias greatest mistake) is still the law, though it is under sustained assault from the left.

On marriage, the fusionist coalition won a great many victories through the democratic process, from the Bill Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act to Californias Prop 8 in 2008. It was the federal courts, and ultimately Justice Anthony Kennedy, that redefined marriage, not the people.

As this shows, the judiciary has been a persistent problem for conservatives, but it is not obvious the results would have been different if, instead of originalism, the conservative legal establishment had been pushing Hammers common good originalism or Adrian Vermeules common good constitutionalism. If Roe v. Wade is overturned this summer in Dobbs, it will be due to Federalist Society originalist judges and decades of work by pro-lifers largely working within the fusionist framework.

So yes, fusionism conserved a lot. Nor are its defeats necessarily discrediting, for being right does not guarantee victory.

Nonetheless, there are now good reasons to rethink the fusionist coalition, as old alliances and positions may no longer make sense with the Cold War long over and Big Business and Wall Street going woke. This does not mean that fusionism was nothing but folly and failure.

There are also, of course, just and reasonable criticisms of how the conservative establishment, let alone the GOP, has acted over the years. In many cases they have prioritized donor interests and issues over those of voters.

The calcification colorfully described as Zombie Reaganism had grown worse as GOP candidates and establishment conservatives failed to adapt to new challenges. This created a political opening for Donald Trump, and an intellectual opportunity for the New Right and others to rethink conservatism in beneficial ways.

But that chance could easily be squandered through arrogance, insolence, and ingratitude. After all, other factions on the right have fallen from greater heights of influence than the New Right has yet scaled.

For example, when the neoconservatives were riding high, they tried to smear those on the right with less enthusiasm for foreign intervention as unpatriotic conservatives who have finished by hating their country. Today, although their influence lingers in the GOP, many of the leading neocons, including the one who wrote those words, are Democratic shills despised by the Republican voters they once led.

This example also illustrates how events often do as much as ideas to elevate, or exile, a faction. The 9/11 attacks gave the neoconservatives an opportunity to lead, and the 2008 financial crisis, as much as the drag of the Iraq War, ensured the end of their time in office.

Events often overtake ideas, for good or ill. Samuel Goldman argues this could pose trouble for the New Right. He writes that, as the pandemic has continued, opposition to restrictions on personal conduct, suspicion of expert authority, and free speech for controversial opinions have become dominant themes in center-right argument and activism.

This is an obvious challenge to managerial left-liberalism, but Goldman suggests it also poses a problem for the New Right, which is overtly hostile to libertarian ideas and often favorable toward government intervention. This analysis is too simple.

It is not just that American folk libertarian attitudes are not interchangeable with libertarian ideology, but also that many of the New Rights leaders have joined the resistance to continued heavy-handed pandemic management. For instance, although Vermeule has endorsed vaccine mandates, writers such as Hammer and Ahmari have been very critical of them, and they are unlikely to be overtaken and undone by a pandemic-inspired libertarian moment.

But Goldman does direct us toward a genuine difficulty that the New Right must address, which is how it can justify being given power. Promising effective big government conservatism is logically compatible with critiquing big government liberalism. But why should the rest of us trust the advocates for big government conservatism, such as Vermeules plans to, instead of trimming the administrative state, use it to advance conservative, or at least Catholic, ends?

There are obvious difficulties, such as how the would-be managers of the New Right would staff the permanent bureaucracy when it and the institutions that train and accredit people to work in it are overwhelmingly held by the left. And there are the persistent problems caused by human fallenness, fallibility, and finitude.

These should not paralyze us from action, but, with a humble awareness of our limitations, they should give us pause. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a well-worn proverb for good reason.

It is not only libertarian ideology that can make people skeptical of expansive government power; experience and humility can have the same effect. Unfortunately, some of the leading figures of the New Right seems to have gotten cocky after a taste of success, and they retain an appetite for petty Twitter feuds.

They should instead remember the virtue of humility, both personally and ideologically. A conservative who disrespects everyone who came before him is doing it wrong.

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

More:

Why The New Right Needs To Ditch Its Bitterness Against The Old Right - The Federalist

WASHINGTON, D.C. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowsers Monday morning turnaround on the citys Covid lockdown policies was sudden and unexpected.

In its haste and in who it spared, and who it did not the decree also served to expose the money-mired confluence of politics, power, and American Covid policy.

The announcement followed public complaints from private business owners facing a third year of ruin and despair, sparing them. It came on the eve of the policies hardest impact on key D.C. constituents, sparing them as well.

Most tellingly, however, it failed to spare the citys schoolchildren. For them, there is no lobby; and so for them, there is no respite.

The mayors decision to end vaccination requirements and sunset certain mask demands came one week after influential D.C. restauranteur Dan Simons publicly complained on Twitter that the federal city had become an unwelcoming place, where politics overruled a tolerance for those Americans who disagreed on vaccine mandates. The climate, he said, was keeping school children from learning important history here and driving business to Maryland and Virginia.

Restaurant business in the District is down an estimated 59 percent since January 2019, and men like Simons felt compelled to take a stand for their city. In standing up (if even for a moment), hed joined Noe Landini, managing director and CEO of REX Management, which also owns restaurants and bars across DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

Landini an outspoken critic of arbitrary Covid restrictions from the very beginning had publicly promised not to discriminate against D.C. customers based on their vaccination status, but was forced to comply by the citys promise of harsh penalties for resistance. His decision to back down spared his businesses the wrath of the city government.

Simons, whose partnership owns four restaurants in D.C., two in Virginia, and one each in Maryland and Pennsylvania, was similarly spared. After an unhinged and barely factual backlash from delirious Twitter users, Simons deleted his tweets. But while he and Landini were given some measure of mercy, one D.C. restaurant was in the process of losing its business.

That business was burger-and-beer restaurant Big Board, which had become a cause clbre after refusing to abide by either mask or vaccine mandates. In the two weeks since its stand, its been forcibly closed by the D.C. government.

In announcing Big Boards indefinite suspension of service on Thursday, the citys alcohol enforcement board claimed their continued operation places the community at risk and cannot be allowed a difficult claim by any measure.

In an ironic twist, the citys decision to close Big Board was posted Monday the same day the sunset of restaurant rules was announced by the mayor. By the letter of the announcement, they might be allowed to reopen when the Covid orders sunset in two more weeks plus a month of unemployment, and sans a month of much-needed business.

The vaccine mandate itself had been in effect one month and had been instated when citywide cases were already in decline. While popular with the white liberals who are often the shrillest voice in the citys politics, bans on unvaccinated customers hit black voters hardest.

Feb. 14 the day the order was repealed on a single days notice is the day before the enforcement of two vaccination shots went into effect. This shift would have affected the citys black residents far more than its white residents, barring more than 55 percent of them from indoor dining, swimming, exercise, and entertainment.

While white liberals may hold the megaphone in D.C., black voters make up more than 45 percent of the population and are a powerful voting bloc. This discrimination against black business, combined with rising violent crime, had pushed Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to join a rising chorus of lawmakers threatening to replace the federal districts mayor with congressional control when they come into power (likely in one year).

Even beyond self-preservation, the mayors sudden decision also fit into the national political scene, coming just a week after Democratic governors across the country began to retreat from years of restrictions, claiming victory over Covid (although the statistics show it was a far more politically informed decision than a medically informed one). Politically charged science is grand and all, but in the fight between the two: politics ber alles.

While both voters and businesses have seemingly been heard loud and clear, one group remains noticeably absent from any sight of relief: children.

On March 1, the mayors order reads, masks STILL will be required at schools.

The meaning is clear: While one of the first things the world learned about Covid was that its effect on children is minimal and despite years of evidence that masking is detrimental to both their learning and social development the mandates remain.

Social media is replete with videos and images of abuse, tears, and insanity in pursuit of the policy, but still two whole years in teachers unions demand it.

While in nearby Virginia parents formed a political bloc to defeat the teachers unions governor, and in faraway San Francisco, parents have powered a recall of union allies on the city school board, by and large, school children dont have an organized voice in American politics.

Teachers do, of course: Theyre vested, entrenched, and in control, claiming to represent the interests of school districts while in reality, organizing against the parents who resist them and the children theyre entrusted with.

Its a harsh reality; one of the many money-mired confluences of politics and power that American Covid policy has laid bare. Children have no organized representation in American politics, and because of this, have suffered the most.

There are two more realities as well, however.

First, parents can change this; and when they do, not even the howls of the unions and their allies can stop them.

Second: They have no choice; our school children need them.

Original post:

DC's Mandates Repeal Shows Who's In Charge Of Covid Rules -- And Isn't - The Federalist

If you thought the epic works of J.R.R. Tolkien could survive adaptation into a billion-dollar TV series by Amazon without being saddled with the dreary ideology of corporate wokeness, or without being marred by executives and show-runners who think they can improve on Tolkiens vast mythopoeia, you were wrong.

So was the Tolkien estate, which in 2017 sold the rights to the appendices in The Lord of the Rings to Amazon for a reported $250 million. Those appendices outline the Second Age of Middle Earth, thousands of years before the events in the acclaimed Lord of the Rings trilogy, and are supposed to be the source material for this new show, which Amazon is calling, The Rings of Power.

But from what little we know about the series, which premieres this fall, it appears Amazon is planning to stray far from its source material. The shows firstteaser traileraired Sunday during the Super Bowl just days after Vanity Fairran an exclusive first lookfeaturing promo photos of some of the main characters.

The trailer, photos, and article all suggest The Rings of Power will deviate drastically from Tolkiens appendices, not only by introducing a racially diverse cast of characters that makes no sense in Tolkiens mythology, but also by compressing thousands of years of Middle Earth history into a few truncated storylines, creating completely new characters, and introducing hobbits (nonsensically calling them harfoots, one of three breeds of hobbits) eons before any hobbits migrated over the Misty Mountains into Arnor.

Its easy to dismiss these complaints as so much nit-picking from Tolkien nerds, and to some extent maybe it is. But this will be the most expensive TV series ever produced, adapted from the most celebrated work of fantasy literature ever published, a work beloved by millions of people all over the world that has no equal in the English language. What happens with this series isnt some trifling thing, its a major cultural event that deserves serious consideration, whatever one thinks of Tolkiens novels or Peter Jacksons film adaptations of them.

So when Amazons Lindsey Weber, executive producer of the series, tells Vanity Fair, It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkiens work would reflect what the world actually looks like, in reference to casting a black elf and a black dwarven princess (without a beard!) and a black hobbit, because Tolkien is for everyone, it should set off alarm bells.

Why doesnt a racially diverse cast of characters make sense in Tolkiens mythology? Because this isnt Games of Thrones or the The Wheel of Time or some other throwaway fantasy series that can easily be adjusted to reflect our myopic modern obsessions about race and representation. This is Lord of the Rings, a prehistoric fantasy epic whose purpose, as Tolkien himselfexplained in some detail, was to provide a legendarium for Britain, which Tolkien felt had no stories of its own, at least not like the legends of other lands: There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff.

To do this, Tolkien worked for decades to create a fully realized lore of Middle Earth languages, genealogies, histories, poetry, maps, detailed geographies. But it was the lore of a particular place: the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East.

Hence it should go without saying (although it clearly doesnt) that most of the characters in Tolkiens legendarium are white. They are, of course, all of variousraces, but here the races are divided between elves, men, dwarves, hobbits, and so on. It makes as much sense to cast black elves and dwarves for a TV adaptation of Tolkiens work as it would to cast Native Americans for an adaptation of Homers Odyssey or Asians for Virgils Aeneid. You could do that, but youd end up with a tale so far removed from its origins that it has become something else entirely.

And that appears to be what Amazon is doing here not just because it decided to graft 21st-century notions of racial diversity onto Tolkiens prehistoric mythology, but because it has also decided to collapse thousands of years of that mythology for the sake of convenience. As showrunner J.D. Payne told Vanity Fair, If you are true to the exact letter of the law, you are going to be telling a story in which your human characters are dying off every season because youre jumping 200 years in time, and then youre not meeting really big, important canon characters until season four. Look, there might be some fans who want us to do a documentary of Middle-earth, but were going to tell one story that unites all these things.

Well, sorry pal, but you cant sucessfully tell one story that unites all these things unless you have some human characters die off every season while your elves live on. Why? Because, like most of the characters being white,thats how Tolkien wrote it. No one ever said it would be easy to adapt Tolkiens tales of the Second Age into an easily consumable streaming series, or that it would be amenable to woke notions of racial equity, but thats what Amazon signed up for.

The truncated timeline is in some ways worse than the racial diversity stuff. Instead of narrowing the scope of the series and focusing on only a handful of characters, Payne and his fellow showrunner Patrick McKay are apparently going to attempt what Tolkien did not, and knit the appendices into a single, straightforward tale. Are they up for it? Do they know Tolkiens work well enough to pull it off? The Vanity Fair piece goes out of its way to assure readers that Payne and McKay are, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, huge Tolkien fans, and agonizingly aware of the pressure.

Yet the article tells us about a canny young elven architect and politician named Elrond (Robert Aramayo) who will rise to prominence in the mystical capital of Lindon. Clearly, the writers of the Vanity Fair piece, Anthony Breznican and Joanna Robinson, are getting this description from Amazon, or the shows Tolkien scholars, or maybe even from Payne and McKay. If so, thats another alarm bell. Elrond is the son of Erendil and Elwing, the grandson of Dior, Thingols heir, and the great-grandson of Beren and Lthien. He didnt rise to prominence through his canny political machinations, he was born prominent. Hes Elrond. Are you kidding me?

And why would Paynesay viewers wouldnt be introduced to major characters until season four if they told the story the way Tolkien intended? What about all the elves that remained after the First Age, whose deeds figure prominently in the events of the Second Age?You know,Galadriel, or Celebrimbor, or Gil-Galad, or Crdan the Shipwright.

Or how about telling us the stories of Amroth and Nimrodel, or the rise of Thranduil (the father of Legolas) as the king of the Silvan Elves, or Elrond founding Rivendell, or the story of the Ents search for the Entwives? You know, all the stories that are only ever hinted at in Tolkiens LOTR trilogy, but which would be awesome to see fleshed out in more detail on screen if they were told by someone who actually knew and loved that history.

And why cant Elros, Elronds brother, be a main character? Do Payne and McKay think the creation of Nmenor isnt enough fodder for an entire season of its own?Also, Elros lived to be 500 years old, so Paynes comment about human characters dying off because you jump 200 years ahead is bunk even if it were to only apply to the race of men.

If none of these names or events mean anything to you, thats fine. But Payne and McKay and Amazons PR shop for The Rings of Power should know all about them, and they should know better than to let a Vanity Fair puff piece make it seem like the people creating this show have no idea what theyre talking about.

Indeed, with every new image and article and teaser we get about this series, the less it seems like a faithful adaptation of Tolkiens work than a generic comic-book fantasy epic with a Lord of the Rings veneer slapped over it. Amazon executives clearly had their own story in mind and just pulled names from Tolkiens legendarium like they were pulling names out of a magical profit-making hat.Ooh, people know the name Galadriel lets have a plucky warrior lady character and name her that! Isildur whos that again?Oh yeah, lets make him asailor, and everyone will be interested because they vaguely remember something from the prologue of the Peter Jackson films about Isildur cutting the One Ring from Saurons hand!

Maybe thats what Amazon wants and thanks to Bezos deep pockets the company can afford to pay a billion dollars to get it. But thats not what the source material deserves, and every Tolkien fan in the world knows it. What a waste.

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.

See original here:

Amazon's 'Lord Of The Rings' Has Already Betrayed Tolkien's Vision - The Federalist

When Canadian truckers first signaled their intent to assemble a Freedom Convoy protesting their governments draconian Covid-19 policies, including vaccine mandates and passports, Prime Minister Justin Trudeaublew them off as a fringe minority.

Just this week, however, Trudeau invoked for the first time ever the Emergencies Act, the successor law to the War Measures Act, in order to mobilize the Canadian military to crush the Freedom Convoy and forcibly clear the truckers and their rigs from the streets of Ottawa. Somehow, this fringe minority has prompted the most authoritarian response from a Canadian government since Trudeaus father, Pierre Trudeau, deployed soldiers in the October Crisis of 1970 to quell an actual separatist movement, theFront de libration du Qubec(FLQ), after it kidnapped the deputy premier of Quebec and a British diplomat.

The October Crisis marked the first time the War Measures Act had ever been invoked in peacetime. But Pierre Trudeau was dealing with actual terrorists (the FLQ had carried out a years-long bombing campaign before the kidnapping, and ended up murdering the deputy premier, Pierre Laporte). His son is dealing with a peaceful, if inconvenient, protest of government policies. Yet here we are, with the younger Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time, and taking the remarkable step of treating peaceful protesters as domestic terrorists.

It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcementsability to effectively enforcethe law, Trudeau said ata news conference Monday afternoon. It is no longer a lawful protest at a disagreement over government policy. It is now an illegal occupation. Its time for people to go home.

Days after the Trudeau administration backed GoFundMes attempt to deplatform the truckers fundraising campaign, Trudeaus Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the Canadian government would expand its terrorist financing rules to target crowdfunding sites like the convoys new platform GiveSendGo.

The illegal blockades have highlighted the fact that crowdfunding platforms, and some of the payment service providers they use, are not fully captured under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, she said. Weare making these changes because we know that these platforms are being used to support illegal blockades and illegal activity which is damaging the Canadian economy.

Trudeaus decision to use the Emergencies Act against Canadian citizens who have already been banned from supporting truckers and threatened with fines and prison time is unprecedented. Historically, the War Measures Act has only been invoked during the two world wars and again in 1970. Now, Trudeau is mobilizing the Canadian military and intelligence agencies against the truckers because he doesnt like their views.

Lets be clear: Trudeau and his administration arent targeting the truckers because they are violent. Even the prime minister admitted that his issue with the thousands of protesters is that they hold unacceptable views.

The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa, who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians, Trudeau said during a press conference in January.

Even then, Trudeau knew the truckers true intentions were peaceful, but he didnt lend them a listening ear. Instead, when the Freedom Convoy arrived at his doorstep, the prime minister fled his Ottowa residence and hid in an undisclosed location. Then he smeared the movement on Twitter and accused the Freedom Convoy of harboring racist vandals.

Its natural to wonder if this weeks-long tension between the Canadian government and Freedom Convoy could have been peacefully resolved if Trudeau had engaged the truckers and offered them an off-ramp. Instead, Trudeau and his team are taking notes from the Democrats Jan. 6 committee in the House by cutting off financial pipelines to people they deem domestic terrorists. In return, the Biden administration is pressuring the Trudeau government to crack down even harder on what the corporate media have labeled a nationwide insurrection.

The truckers and other Canadians who have stuck it out in Ottawa want freedom, and they risked their trucks, gasoline, warmth, finances, and freedom to secure it. Their reward for voicing legitimate concerns about Canadas draconian Covid policies, however, has been an authoritarian crackdown at the behest of Trudeau, who could have deescalated the situation by listening to the convoys concerns. His pride and intolerance, though, allowed only one response: The truckers hold unacceptable views and must therefore be treated like terrorists.

By recklessly invoking the Emergencies Act and involving the Canadian military, Trudeau has massively escalated a situation that could now easily spiral out of control. If it does, he will only have himself to blame.

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 post:

If Canada's Crackdown Spirals Out Of Control, Trudeau Will Be To Blame - The Federalist

Students in Los Angeles Unified School District are still suffering from mask tyranny while tens of thousands of adults in California have a free pass from the corporate media and other Covid-crazed critics to party it up in honor of the Super Bowl because it is politically convenient for Democrats.

While hundreds of unmasked, left-wing celebrities cheered on the Los Angeles Rams to victory during Super Bowl LVI at SoFi stadium in L.A. on Sunday night, students as young as 2 years old were forced by hypocritical politicians, health bureaucrats, and power-hungry teachers unions in the same city to wear face coverings for hours on end at local daycares and schools the next morning.

Plenty of parents and students in California have expressed outrage over prolonged masking in the state, especially as Democrats in other states, hoping to boost their 2022 midterm chances, are calling for the end of Covid protocols. Their calls to unmask kids and truly follow the science on Covid risk among children, however, have been largely ignored for two years by the same people who turned a blind eye to maskless hypocrites at this years Super Bowl.

Despite orders from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and demands from the NFL that Super Bowl participants as young as 2 years old wear masks, virtue-signaling coastal elites, entertainment legends, Hollywood stars, politicians, and star athletes who preached masking throughout the pandemic all went bare-faced during the big game.

Fans and stars alike were gifted KN95 masks when they entered the stadium but the people, especially celebrities, who wore them were few and far between.

Among those caught without a mask were LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, Sean Penn, The Weeknd, Matt Damon, Kevin Hart, Ellen DeGeneres, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez, Kanye West, Drake, Martha Stewart, The Rock, Tracy Morgan, Justin Bieber, Hailey Bieber, Kendall Jenner, Adam DeVine, and more. The list goes on and on.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, was also caught without a face covering just one week after he claimed he held his breath when violating local mask orders at the NFC Championship game. At the time, Garcetti was posing for a photo with NBA star Magic Johnson.

Hip-hop icons such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Kendrick Lamar, 50 Cent, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, and their performers also got away without masks during their crowded throwback halftime show.

These phony little tyrants pushed Covid rules when it was convenient for them but ditched the same rules when it wasnt. Public officials, teachers unions, and politicians unwilling to give up their power claim they want to strap masks on kids for safety and Covid-19 prevention. The science and their actions, however, tell a different story.

For them, the end of the pandemic occurs when its not convenient for them any longer. While partying at what would have been smeared as a superspreader event not long ago was glossed over by the Covid-crazed media, making schoolchildren suffer for years in masks that hinder their social and linguistics development is still a useful agenda item that satiates teachers unions who largely donate to Democrat campaigns that give them what they want.

While California Gov. Gavin Newsom has toyed with finally rescinding some of his mask mandates for the Golden State, hes holding out on behalf of teachers unions, which backed him during his recall election.

They just asked for a little bit more time, and I think thats responsible, and I respect that, the governor said of teachers unions at a news conference last week.

California Democrats will cruelly keep children in masks and celebrities will keep supporting them so long as dollars keep flowing but, of course, they cant let that ruin a maskless Super Bowl celebration.

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.

Read more:

Elites Party Maskless On Super Bowl Sunday, Kids Are Masked At School On Monday - The Federalist

Eighteen-year-old San Francisco native Eileen Gu has become an overnight sensation after her recent gold medal victory in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games in the big air skiing competition. Gu was born to an American father and a Chinese mother, is bilingual, and has a career as a fashion model outside of her successful athletic pursuits.

In an ideal world, Gu would be seen as the embodiment of the American dream and fill the hearts of every patriot with pride as she ascended the medal podium. Unfortunately, Americans will get no such opportunity. Gu has decided to represent geopolitical rival China in this years games. Gu has said she feels just as American as I am Chinese but chose China over America on the world stage.

Gu is not alone. Many American-born athletes, some with no ethnic Chinese background, have chosen to represent China in this years games. Almost all on Chinas 2022 mens hockey team were born or raised in North America. Further, many of these athletes will use a Chinese name when competing for the foreign power. American Jake Chelios will go by Jieke Kailiaosi when playing for Team China.

Americas best are choosing to disavow the land of their birth, the names of their fathers, and the culture of their community to give glory to China. Perhaps an exodus like this would shock more Americans if it was out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, most Americans are all too familiar with our cultures attacks on our national identity and on each other.

One need look no further than American corporate media to feel the hate radiate off the screen. This week, Viacom-owned streaming service Showtime announced a new show called Everythings Gonna Be All White. The first line of the trailer says, I think what annoys me most about white people is when they pretend like theyre the victim, followed by mock tears.

Each holiday or day of celebration, the media is happy to supply an endless buffet of thing you like is bad, actually think pieces to shove down your throat. And when creators do occasionally emerge with the ability to unite and create something that many people enjoy, they are forced to operate within an ever-shrinking window of acceptable ideas and destroyed if they soar too close to the sun.

There are many ways to understand this phenomenon, but on a basic level, Americans are attacking their neighbors heroes, traditions, and races. It is not difficult to imagine how this constant self-mutilation will bleed a nation out of confidence, vitality, and spirit. No one should be surprised when just 28 percent of Americans think America is on the right track.

Self-deprecation has become an American value. Is it then any wonder that athletes are not in a hurry to represent a nation that hates itself and those who call it home?

Whatever can be said about China, it does not despise the thought of its own existence. It will not apologize for expanding its influence through the Belt and Road initiative, dominating manufacturing, or openly threatening to take Taiwan. The Chinese regime and its supporters may know their country is not perfect, but it is their country. They believe it is their destiny to control and they will not listen to complaints from their enemies.

Americans have mostly tuned out the 2022 Olympics to this point, handing NBC some of its worst ratings in Olympics coverage ever. Many pundits blame American viewers anger about the Uyghur genocide for low interest. While there is some truth in this claim, it misses the deeper disease finally showing its symptoms in America.

Broken by the constant harassment by entrenched media, political, academic, and social classes, Americans are hesitant to cheer for those who claim to represent them because many who make the same claim have broken their trust. Americans cannot be rallied around beating China because they cannot be rallied. Passion for country, countrymen, or creed can no longer animate the American heart.

This system cannot hold if America hopes to survive. A humiliated and downtrodden nation is not worthy of preservation or investment. Despondent citizens will refuse to delay gratification and attempt to get as much meat from the dying beast before it decays completely.

They will be unwilling to raise families, volunteer, and participate in community activities like church attendance. They will instead turn to quick, easy diversions like porn and drug use. Solutions are not plentiful or easy, and I do not envy cultural or political leaders who hope to solve these problems, but ignoring them only hastens the dissolution of our nation.

A few unpatriotic athletes may not destroy our nation, but a complete lack of national culture and purpose will. Americans must suffocate the subversive elements of our society of money, power, and attention. It is time to kick the dividers of America from the podium and replace them with those honored to represent their nation.

Cal McNellie is a Senior at Hillsdale College studying Financial Management and Politics. He has been published in the Hillsdale College Collegian, The Federalist and is host of the Screening for Meaning Podcast. He is a native of Clevland, Ohio and is on Twitter @bigcalmc.

Go here to see the original:

Thanks To Self-Flagellation, Americans Are Abandoning Team USA - The Federalist

I have a question for conservative friends excited about the prospect of an Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to amend the U.S. Constitution: What makes you think that only conservatives would show up?

The Convention of the States (CoS) campaign, largely led by Republicans, recently persuaded Wisconsin and Nebraska to apply to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Seventeen states have applied, half of the two-thirds (34) needed to trigger this unprecedented event.

CoS resolutions propose restraints on federal spending, limits on government power and jurisdiction, and term limits. Additional campaigns are promoting various amendments to achieve similar goals. Con-Con enthusiasts promise to cure government spending and overreach by amending the Constitution.

It doesnt matter what they promise, however, or which organizations support or oppose the Con-Con. What matters is who shows up. Liberal activists would crash the Con-Con party and whatever ratification process ensues. This would not be hard to do, so why wouldnt they?

Article V says Congress shall call a convention requested by two-thirds of the states. Its unclear what the role of all 50 states would be, but they are of course blue as well as red. This means that liberal activists will have full access to any constitutional convention.

So if the Con-Con process started tomorrow, who would Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer select as delegates? Pelosi could exclude Republican choices, as with her January 6 committee, or trade her speakers gavel for the Con-Con chairmanship.

Conservative Con-Con promoters will not control who attends, what issues are discussed, or what constitutional amendments ultimately are approved. The convention will make all decisions and conservatives will not be able to guarantee the outcome.

Imagine both political parties attending the same national convention, at the same time, with progressive insiders controlling credentials, rules, issues committees, and voting procedures.

Participants would include not just conservative Republicans, but Democrats, RINOs, socialists, Green New Dealers, Supreme Court packers, gun controllers, police de-funders, big spenders, Roe v. Wade codifiers, teacher unions, Anthony Fauci fans, Electoral College critics, race-obsessed wokesters, social justice warriors, and peaceniks who would balance the federal budget by disbanding the Department of Defense.

Conservatives who blithely assume that only conservatives would be empowered to participate in a Con-Con, and that ratification procedures would block unwanted results, should read Mollie Hemingways book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. As Mollie wrote, well before Election Day arrived, leftist factions used insider manipulations and bare-knuckled tactics to wire the election for Joe Biden.

Mark Zuckerberg spent $419 million Zuck bucks to finance the private takeover of government election offices. And allies in big tech media used perception management tactics to create false news and promote belief.

The Constitution empowers state legislatures to oversee elections. Thirty-nine states modified their laws or procedures in 2020, and many courts and state election administrators got away with changing or overriding election rules without legislative approval.

Why would such tactics not be used to control the outcome of an Article V Constitutional Convention? Millions more Zuck bucks could easily subsidize Con-Con crashers participating in expensive state and national conventions, especially in blue states.

Most leaders of the Article V Con-Con movement have no personal experience with the dynamics of political conventions, much less contested conventions. Key decisions are made months before a national convention begins, and decisive motions often are passed without warning with a gavel crack on a voice vote.

As reported in Rigged, courts are useless when fast-moving political events override internal organizational rules and even established law. Several book chapters end with regret, with statements like, Republicans later learned and The court ruled in Trumps favor, but it was too late.

Presidential elections come and go, but Donald Trumps loss was a small setback compared to the political calamity for America if our Constitution were permanently altered to suit progressive goals.

Regardless of how an Article V convention is called or who promises what, it is nave to assume that a pre-written set of rules for a Con-Con would play out as conservatives expect. Once a convention begins, it makes its own rules. Promises about procedures and outcomes are meaningless because they are unenforceable.

When things go wronglike marching brooms and buckets swamping the Sorcerers apprentice in Disneys Fantasiacourts would be no help. In disputes about convention procedures or results, advocates making promises today will lose later in court where, if they win, it will be too late. Either way, this is a fiasco in the making.

I saw how this works years ago, when I was active in grassroots issues and elective politics in the Michigan Republican Party. In 1988 the Michigan Party was the first to choose national delegates. The contentious state convention split in two, and the conservative coalition filed a lawsuit charging violations of state law.

The lawsuit lost in a lower court but prevailed on appealmany months after the National Convention ended. Recently, the Trump campaign finally won an election lawsuit in Wisconsin, but the ruling is on appeal. Meanwhile, Biden has been president for 13 months.

Now comes legislative redistricting. According to Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel, former Attorney General Eric Holder is using aggressive litigation, accusations of voter suppression, racial intimidation, and misleading rhetoric to gerrymander election maps and make it harder for Republicans to win in 2022 and 2024. This is no time for conservatives to divert time, attention, and resources to cope with a self-induced Constitutional Convention crisis.

Some well-meaning leaders seem to imagine themselves as latter-day Founding Fathers, and excited followers envision a festive gathering socializing with Fox News celebrities who anticipate a good show. All should reconsider what they are asking for.

Federal spending is unrestrained, but our Constitution is not the problem. It would make more sense for state lawmakers to return federal subsidies to the U.S. Treasury than to bet the Constitution in a reckless gamble they are likely to lose.

Instead of rose-colored glasses, we need a clear-eyed assessment of political realities. Conservatives should focus on strategies to win, without putting our Constitution at risk.

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military and social issues.

Go here to see the original:

Why Is The Right Betting The Constitution On An Article V Convention? - The Federalist

Last nights Super Bowl marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. You can focus on the two quarterbacks in the game, following a year that saw the retirements of Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady. You can focus on the halftime show and the plethora of ads playing off of nostalgia for late-Gen Xers and Millennials, with artists performing songs that dominated early-aughts radio. I thought it was great. Only the brightest minds saw how it was warping our nations very soul.

Back to the ads: the movies and TV shows being promoted may be streamers, but the formulas are the same and the callbacks are obvious. Remember how you loved The Lord of The Rings 20 years ago? Its back with diverse Hobbits!

Remember Fresh Prince? Its a gritty reboot rated TV-MA!

Remember J. Lo and Ben? There they are again! Can I get a GIGLI 2 chant?

Its hardly irritating, because at this point its so obvious. Awkwafinas ad for Disney+ as having the most Goats was the most friendly wall-breaking acknowledgment of this when she references Bart hassling Woody, shes referencing characters from a show that premiered in 1989 and a movie that premiered in 1995. This is the nostalgia for what is now the largest generation in America you want to share it with your kids now, if youre a mature adult, or complain about the lack of collectible Book of Boba Fett action figures if youre not.

This is all to be expected. There is nothing new under the sun, and Millennial nostalgia is likely to dominate our culture for decades past its end point in ways that Zoomers will complain about using forums Millennials dont even recognize as existing.

But theres a much more important aspect of what we saw going on in the Super Bowl: the Millennials arent just the most sizable generation now in terms of sheer numbers, spending power, and cultural drive. Within the world of sports where, unlike the world of politics, winning actually matters they are in charge.

Last nights game featured two Millennial head coaches facing off against each other, both born in the 1980s. The idea that at age 36, Sean McVay already has a coaching tree may sound ridiculous but he does, and his opposing coach last night is in it. The head coaches of the Vikings, Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Browns, Packers, Cardinals, Broncos, and 49ers are all elder Millennials, with ages ranging from 36 to 42.

They are the same age as their veteran players. They are young enough that they are now calling play action fakes for players they once did the same with on Madden dynasty mode. This advancement of new blood, even within aged franchises, is one reason why the NFL stays fresh and innovative, why its 2021 season ended with such an amazing run of compelling, competitive games, and why it remains the most dominant sports, television, and common cultural force in America.

Compare this for a moment to the other powerful force in America our decrepit political leadership that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The New York Times Jonathan Martin pushed out one of his narrative-setting pieces yesterday, looking at the GOPs Senate recruitment battles, and it contains an interesting insight into how our octogenarian leadership class cant learn new tricks. This same week last year, a similar McConnell-focused piece was in the WSJ, explicitly comparing the current cycle to the Tea Party moment of 2009 and teased weighing into primaries to help ward off what I guess hes calling goofballs these days.

And how is that working out for him? Not well. Not well at all.

For more than a year, former President Donald Trump has berated Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, savaging him for refusing to overturn the states presidential results and vowing to oppose him should he run for the Senate this year.

In early December, though, Ducey received a far friendlier message from another former Republican president. At a golf tournament luncheon, George W. Bush encouraged him to run against Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, suggesting the Republican Party needs more figures like Ducey to step forward.

Its something you have to feel a certain sense of humility about, the governor said this month of Bushs appeal. You listen respectfully, and thats what I did.

Bush and a band of anti-Trump Republicans led by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are hoping he does more than listen.

As Trump works to retain his hold on the Republican Party, elevating a slate of friendly candidates in midterm elections, McConnell and his allies are quietly, desperately maneuvering to try to thwart him. The loose alliance, which was once thought of as the GOP establishment, for months has been engaged in a high-stakes candidate recruitment campaign, full of phone calls, meetings, polling memos and promises of millions of dollars. Its all aimed at recapturing the Senate majority, but the election also represents what could be Republicans last chance to reverse the spread of Trumpism before it fully consumes their party.

McConnell for years pushed Trumps agenda and only rarely opposed him in public. But the message that he delivers privately now is unsparing, if debatable: Trump is losing political altitude and need not be feared in a primary, he has told Ducey in repeated phone calls, as the Senate leaders lieutenants share polling data they argue proves it.

In conversations with senators and would-be senators, McConnell is blunt about the damage he believes Trump has done to the GOP, according to those who have spoken to him. Privately, he has declared he wont let unelectable goofballs win Republican primaries.

History doesnt bode well for such behind-the-scene efforts to challenge Trump, and McConnells hard sell is so far yielding mixed results. The former president has rallied behind fewer far-right candidates than initially feared by the partys old guard. Yet a handful of formidable contenders have spurned McConnells entreaties, declining to subject themselves to Trumps wrath all for the chance to head to a bitterly divided Washington.

Last week, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland announced he would not run for Senate, despite a pressure campaign that involved his wife. Ducey is expected to make a final decision soon, but he has repeatedly said he has little appetite for a bid.

[]

McConnell has been loath to discuss his recruitment campaign and even less forthcoming about his rivalry with Trump. In an interview last week, he warded off questions about their conflict, avoiding mentioning Trumps name even when it was obvious to whom he was referring.

If Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who is an outspoken Trump antagonist running for Senate this fall, wins her primary, it will show that endorsements from some people didnt determine the outcome, he said.

Murkowski appears well-positioned at the moment, with over $4 million on hand while her Trump-backed rival, Kelly Tshibaka, has $630,000.

Hes made very clear that youve been there for Alaska, youve been there for the team, and Im going to be there for you, Murkowski said of McConnells message to her.

Even more pointedly, McConnell vowed that if Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Senate Republican, faces the primary that Trump once promised, Thune will crush whoever runs against him. (The most threatening candidate, Gov. Kristi Noem, has declined.)

The Senate Republican leader has been worried that Trump will tap candidates too weak to win in the general election, the sort of nominees who cost the party control of the Senate in 2010 and 2012.

We changed the business model in 2014 and have not had one of these goofballs nominated since, he told a group of donors on a private conference call last year, according to a recording obtained by The New York Times.

But McConnell has sometimes decided to pick his battles in Georgia, he acceded to Herschel Walker, a former football star and Trump-backed candidate, after failing to recruit Perdue to rejoin the Senate. He also came up empty-handed in New Hampshire, where Gov. Chris Sununu passed on a bid after an aggressive campaign that also included lobbying from Bush.

In Maryland, Hogan was plainly taken with the all-out push to recruit him, although he declined to take on Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat

McConnell also dispatched Collins and Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah to lobby Gov. Hogan. That campaign culminated last weekend, when Romney called Hogan to vent about the RNCs censure, tell him Senate Republicans needed anti-Trump reinforcements and argue that Hogan could have more of a platform in his effort to remake the party as a sitting senator rather than an ex-governor.

Im very interested in changing the party, and that was the most effective argument, said Hogan, who is believed to be considering a bid for the White House.

The party has changed indeed, and quite obviously so. This crew of Republicans from the past who previously enjoyed relevance are still struggling to grasp how much it has changed.

The situation in Missouri is a good example of this. The three leading candidates vary in how much they are likely to be in favor of a more Trumpian agenda should they end up in the Senate but the idea that any of the three will be McConnell acolytes seems absurd. The decisions in primaries in 2022 are likely to come down to a choice between Trumpian candidates and conservatives who have made peace with his popularity in the party.

McConnells recruiting failures in Maryland, New Hampshire, Georgia, and elsewhere indicate how unwilling he is to adapt to a changing conference, but also how tired his playbook comes across when trying to push politicians to join a Senate under his leadership. Deploying Bush-era figures to convince post-Bush candidates to come in for the big win just wont work, not on potential candidates who actually want a long and relevant future in the party.

This is not an ageist insult. Grand Old dogs can and sometimes do learn new tricks. But it is an insult to anyones intelligence who has been following politics for the past decade to think that we are going back to the old ways of doing things. The Republican Party of old has passed in and out of rigor mortis. It cannot be raised from the dead.

The sooner its leadership is filled with new blood who reflect this fact, the sooner it will have an impact on the nation that actually lines up with the priorities of the people who put them there. And the political risk in failing to do this is far higher than McConnell seems to think.

Read more here:

In 2022, The Torch Will Be Passed Whether You Like It Or Not - The Federalist

The Biden administration has been steadily ratcheting up its abuse of power to attack political enemies and criminalize dissent. The egregious overcharging and heinous treatment of January 6 detainees in the DC gulag is one painful example. But its making even more dangerous moves toward creating thought police. And they are bold enough to announce it publicly.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin on Feb. 7, 2022 that outlined their thought crime agenda. It states, The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms ofmis- dis- and mal-information(MDM).

False or misleading narratives could very well be used to describe the entire programming schedule of CNN and MSNBC. They even have a TLA (three-letter acronym) for the problem, so you know were deep into a bad government solution.

The desire to control what people watch, hear, read and eventually think is deeply embedded in the lefts playbook. They have been at this for generations, but recently have succeeded to the point they are comfortable just saying it outright. They have convinced 40 percent of millennials that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The trick now is linking speech they want to shut down to terrorism.

They did that very effectively after the January 6, 2021 riot. They took a political protest that spiraled out of control and labeled it an insurrection or a coup. Then they began to spread that beyond the small number who committed any violence to the vastly larger who peacefully protested. Now they are roping in anyone who supported investigating the election results in any way.

Then they added weak charges of seditious conspiracy for some of the rioters. This ignored the fact that their own indictments showed the conspiracy they found was not to overthrow the government or even the election. It was to have a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) across the river from DC in case Antifa attacked or the unlikely event President Trump himself invoked the Insurrection Act and asked for assistance.

The hysterically named Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol is working feverishly to spin all of this into a web. They are unlikely to succeed because all available evidence so far appears to show no actual conspiracy to conduct an attack on the U.S. Capitol.

But the situation has huge usefulness to the Biden administration. It gave them a way to smear large numbers of their political opponents as seditionists, coup plotters, insurrectionists and the big prize, terrorists. That is precisely what theyre aiming at with this new threat document.

The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content, the document states.

They make their goal of speech control perfectly clear by specifying the consumption of certain online content. What is stunning is their unashamed belief that policing this falls withing their purview. It seems to call for an agency focused on ensuring that only online content the government feels is legitimate is alloweda Ministry of Truth, if you will.

The agency gets even more specific: There is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.

Aha, there it is. Those right-wing extremists are at it again. And pay close attention to the phrasing inspired violent extremist attacks. That is a direct path to incited violent extremist attacks and to material support for terrorism. That is how they will criminalize speech they dislike.

Currently, this only applies to foreign terror organizations. But at this pace it wont be long until they extend that to domestic groups.

That fits right in with their earlier National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism from June 2021, which is directed at designating political opponents of the left into that category. They explicitly tie their social engineering agenda to this new threat: This approach must apply to our efforts to counter domestic terrorism by addressing underlying racism and bigotry.

Anyone who is not fully on board with the lefts agenda on those topics is part of the problem, and that means you are supporting the domestic terrorists. The Biden administration also foreshadowed the thought policing by announcing they were deputizing the tech tyrants in this noble cause. Jen Psaki admitted from the podium that the administration tells Facebook what posts to censor.

They have now bragged they are using state power paired with private efforts to push a political agenda. This level of coordination calls into question the legality of having the social media sites act to censor things the government cannot. That is forbidden, but it remains now for a case to be made that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are acting as agents of the government.

The censorship is bad, but this is really social engineering using the threat of a jackboot on your neck or a trip to the gulag as the motivation to comply. That was why they needed the additional terror multiplier.

We must resist and push back the ever-growing abuse of power in this country. If they succeed in criminalizing dissent, the left will have a clear path to the statist paradise they so deeply desire. The next elections must bring people to Washington deeply committed to rooting this out. That can begin with a new Congress writing budget instructions forbidding a single dime be spent on this anti-constitutional garbage.

A republic, if you can keep it was Benjamin Franklins worry. This is exactly what he meant. Time to do some of that We the People stuff and shut this down.

Jim Hanson is president of Security Studies Group and served in U.S. Army Special Forces.

View post:

Biden's Homeland Security Announces It Will Investigate Thought Crimes - The Federalist

Trust in corporate media is at an all-time low, but too many Americans still believe the corrupt press even though they are characterized by lying for political gain.

A new poll from The Federalist and Susquehanna Polling & Research out on Friday found that at least 75 percent of American voters rightfully dont trust the corrupt press because outlets mispresentthefactstopushapoliticalagenda. According to the same poll, 15 percent of likely voters still do believe the corporate media tells the truth when communicating news to its readers and viewers.

Fake news outlets have given the people zero reasons to believe they have Americans best interests at heart so why isnt trust in corporate media even lower?

For years, media outlets staffed by leftists and pedophiles have used their influence to change political tides in their favor. Corporate media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and more have proven they exist to serve Democrats. Their sleazy attempts to craft false narratives became extra apparent during the 2016 election cycle when then-candidate Donald Trump gained popularity for calling out the fake news media.

Trump was one of the few 2016 candidates willing to criticizethe companies that 58 percent of Americans say have become the enemy of the people, and for his boldness, the media slandered him. For years, corporate media reporters and pundits who knew better helped craft and amplify the Russian collusion hoax in hopes that they could shift the nations affinity for Trump toward their preferred candidate. When word got out that their precious Steele dossier was bogus, the corrupt press did not recant their abhorrent coverage but doubled down on it.

During Trumps presidency, the corporate media relentlessly lied about what he said, what he did, his allies, and his Supreme Court nominees, even going so far as to spread conspiracy theories about whether the Republican used a digital background in a video addressing Americans following his bout with Covid-19.

While the corporate media readily smear and lie about conservatives and Trump, they worship the ground Democrats walk on. When President Joe Biden assumed office in January of 2021, the corrupt press tripped over each other to offer him resounding praise, glowing profiles, and fluffy coverage featuring fun facts about his favorite ice cream flavors.

Even before the 2020 election, multiple outlets ran interference for the Biden campaign by repeatedly refusing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal because, in their eyes, it doesnt amount to much. When Big Tech also censored the major New York Post story that had the potential to change voters minds about casting a ballot for Biden, these same media outlets pumped out defenses of the digital nuking.

In just the last two years, corporate media downplayed the destruction and violence caused by rioters during the 2020 summer of rage, misrepresented the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, cheered on fake fact-checks attempting to silence discussions about election integrity and the Wuhan lab leak theory, which most Americans believe, fearmongered about the coronavirus, and covered up the sins of its own pundits and their kin.

When Americans complained about inflation and the supply-chain crisis, corporate media published articles demanding that citizens stop shopping. When Americans in southern states expressed worry about the surging number of border apprehensions thanks to Bidens crisis, the Democrat media tried to distract them with a fake whipping story.

Its alarming that 15 percent of American voters still trust the propagandists who run the corrupt press. Fake news outlets dont care that their work is sloppy because their objective isnt spreading the truth. Its controlling the narrative and maintaining power.

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.

See the original post:

Why Do 15% Of Voters Still Believe Corporate Media Tells The Truth? - The Federalist