Category Archives: Federalist

If youre not already watching Yellowstone on Paramount Network, then youre missing out on the best show on television. Its The Godfather in Montana, starring Kevin Costner in his best role since Dancing with Wolves. Now, from Yellowstone co-creator Taylor Sheridan, comes the origin story of the Dutton Ranch in 1883, which debuted after Costners latest this week and continues on the new Paramount+ streaming service.

Its easy to forget in these modern days, sitting in our air-conditioned homes, 60-inch OLED hanging on the wall and super-computer in hand, that America was once wild, free, and available to those with the stones to take it. The road West was long, but millions upon millions of Americans, some newly arrived on these shores, some just looking for a better life or a chance to start over again, took that long and dangerous journey to find themselves a plot of land to call their very own.

In 1883, Taylor Sheridan shows us what that journey is like for a family we know, the Duttons. Of course, the Duttons we have grown to know over four seasons of Yellowstone are the descendants of these brave pioneers, but they have the same fiery, success-at-any-cost spirit, and thats what makes them fun to watch.

Leading this generation of the Dutton family is Tim McGraw as James. When we first see James, hes being chased by thieves trying to steal his horses and wagon. Through some sly horsemanship and deadeye shooting, Dutton kills them all. Looking on is the other main character of this first episode, Sam Elliott as Shea Brennan, a Pinkerton detective hired to get a group of immigrant pioneers to Oregon. Elliott is the glue of this cast, at least so far. Hes a criminally under-appreciated star and the authenticity of this performance drips in the sweat off of his serious silver stache.

1883 starts us off in Texas, in the wild cowboy town of Fort Worth. Today its part of the DFW metroplex, one of Americas fastest-growing cities and home to Horned Frogs, corporate headquarters, and more Chevy Suburbans than horses, but it still has a bit of the wild cow town spirit we see in this episode.

The scene-stealer of this first episode also serves as our occasional narrator, Duttons daughter Elsa, played by Isabel May. From what weve seen so far, the rattlesnakes and thieves should be scared of her, because shes certainly not scared of them. At one point Elsa is assaulted by a rotund drunk man who stumbles into her bed. She fights him off long enough for her father to blow his head off. Apparently Beth Dutton wasnt the first firecracker in the Dutton family.

By the end of the first episode, we see the Duttons and Elliotts large crew of German immigrants in a long wagon train evocative of the storybook tales we read as children. Somehow though, this show seems like it will illustrate the darker side of that journey. Died of dysentery may have been a bad way to lose Oregon Trail on your Apple IIe during computer class, but for these pioneers it was a true threat.

From the teases Ive seen of upcoming episodes, the Duttons will face every manner of challenge on their way to what will become the Yellowstone Ranch we know and love. Everything from the wilds of nature, to Indians who wanted the scalps of pioneers as trophies, to disease and malnutrition will look to keep these brave folks from reaching the promised land. You can bet Ill be there for every minute.

This is the western we all need right now to remind us how the West was won, and how the brave souls who embarked on a long, dangerous journey into the unknown helped give us the America we have today. Freedom isnt free, and it didnt spring up all of sudden in a trendy Brooklyn diner with avocado toast and a Tesla. 1883 reminds us that without the efforts of real pioneers, who risked life and limb to trudge across the great plains, none of what we enjoy today would be here. This is the story of America, and you shouldnt miss it.

Brad Jackson is a writer and radio personality whose work has appeared at ABC, CBS, Fox News, and multiple radio programs. He was the longtime host and producer of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning podcast and radio show with more than 1500 episodes. Guests included politicians, Wall Street experts, best-selling author Brad Thor, economist Art Laffer, journalists Michael Barone, Jim Pethokoukis and Andrew Malcolm, as well as Super Bowl-winning quarterback Drew Brees. Brad covers all things edible and cultural for The Federalist. You can find him on Twitter and Instagram at @bradwjackson.

Read more from the original source:

'Yellowstone' Origin Story '1883' Is The Western We All Need Right Now - The Federalist

By now, youve likely seen or heard the latest coronavirus messaging from the White House, which President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk about again later on Tuesday. The president gave the first doomsday message for the unvaxxed, COVID response chief Jeff Zients repeated it, and chief of staff Ron Klain doubled down on it, so the comments were no slip of the tongue. This is the administrations official line.

We are intent on not letting omicron disrupt work and school for the vaccinated. Youve done the right thing, and we will get through this. For the unvaccinated, youre looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm, Zients said, one day after Biden made nearly identical comments.

This messaging is problematic for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is its remarkable ability to further harden 50 percent of the country against the so-called unity president, who has shaped up to be leagues more divisive than his predecessor.

But buried under the latest dark winter threat is an admission from the Biden White House that its detractors have been right about its aims all along. The contrast between the in-group and the out-group isnt that one is rid of the virus while the other isnt. The difference is that one has done the right thing.

In fact, the message for the vaccinated seems to assume omicron infections as a foregone conclusion. It assures the vaxxed that the administration is there to help make their lives easier, omicron or not, because theyve done the righteous thing by falling in line with the White Houses vaccine goals.

Frankly, it makes sense to assume widespread omicron infections regardless of vaccination status. Breakthrough cases are the new norm, with plenty of high-profile Democrats, including Jen Psaki, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren, among those statistics. Thats because, as weve known for a while now, the vaccinated can still get COVID. They can still spread COVID. And they can still be hospitalized with COVID.

What doesnt make sense, then, is the insistence that remaining unvaccinated is a death sentence. For behind all the hysterical fearmongering, many people who have not gotten the jab will not come anywhere near severe illness and death this Christmas, nor are they more of a risk than the vaxxed to others, nor will they be overwhelming hospitals.

If the administrations dark winter threats are intended for young people of a healthy weight without preexisting conditions, for instance, theyre a bald-faced lie. A vaccine cant decrease a persons chance of death any lower than 0.001 percent. And judging by the fact that the warning was in the context of disrupting work and school, this is exactly the demographic the White House is barking at.

Its here that the White House can no longer cling to its pandemic of the unvaccinated talking point. The data flatly debunks it. Instead, it must differentiate the groups not by who is getting and spreading the virus, but by who has done the right thing.

This is all to be expected, of course, because its part of the same pandemic theater weve been subjected to with masks and distancing. Aside from the most at-risk groups (who have had plenty of time to get vaccinated), vaccine pushes for those not at risk have the same flavor as mask mandates that permit those ubiquitous homemade cloth face coverings.

In both cases, the science is pretty clear. Unvaxxed young, healthy people and those with natural immunity are well protected from serious COVID, and masks dont really work unless theyre specific kinds like N-95s (which the mask mandates never differentiate between or require). Yet the Biden administration and other bureaucrats want you to get vaxxed and mask up science be damned.

If it hasnt been clear in the last two years, it should be clear now: The forever pandemic and all the nasty rules that come with it arent about shutting down the virus, following the science, slowing the spread, flattening the curve, or being all in this together. Theyre about doing the Democrat-prescribed right thing.

See original here:

Vaccine Threats Aren't To Keep You Safe. They're To Keep You In Line - The Federalist

As 2021 draws to a close, perhaps one of the most important lessons learned for conservatives comes from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, who in a Sept. 28 debate with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin, declared: I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.

With that quotation, McAuliffe not only wrecked his campaign, but exposed what the left is really up to with public education, namely trying to undermine and vitiate parental authority. The lesson for conservatives is to keep pulling the thread on education, because it will keep paying political dividends.

Take, for example, WaPo columnist Kate Cohen, who authored a Nov. 24 op-ed titled: Parents think they know what is best for schools. But they often dont. Cohen didnt mince words: We shouldnt be in charge of our childrens education. Thats right, I agree with the statement Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe made in a late-September debate. Quoting McAuliffes blunder, Cohen doubles down regarding his assertion about parents not telling schools what to teach. Of course we shouldnt! asserts the mother of three.

It gets better. Cohen continues: Someone with real expertise should keep up with how many planets there are and how many genders, with the best way to do long division and to talk about race. She then closes her op-ed: We need more child-to-parent intergenerational training, as when your child goes to school, learns about the world, and comes home and educates you.

Let me summarize Cohens position. Using her own prudential judgment, Cohen as a parent has determined that whats taught in her childrens school in New York is good for them, and for her. She then writes to persuade adults to make a similar informed judgment to trust education experts. Of course, the obvious implication would be that adults like her and those to whom she is writing are reasonable enough to make informed judgments about whats best for their children, thus unintentionally disproving her own argument about public school autonomy.

This would be funnier if Cohens examples werent so terrible. There are two biological sexes, and two genders corresponding to those sexes. Thats not only science, its logic.

As my friend and professional philosopher Bryan Cross has argued, sex is manifested in the teleological order of the body. As Cross explains in an excellent piece at Public Discourse, binary quality of sex as male or female can be grounded in the two natural orders of the body with respect to gamete production. This is true even if there is no single genetic marker that determines this.

The argument that parents need to learn about the ever-expanding rainbow of genders is not only fallacious but dangerous, as Ethics and Public Policy Center Director Ryan Andersons book When Harry Became Sally (delisted from Amazon) and Abigail Shriers Irreversible Damage (also targeted for cancellation) so expertly prove. These books, which should be required reading for parents, explain both the fallacious science supporting the transgender movement and the terrible havoc gender dysphoria is causing on a generation of Americas youth.

Moreover, to give our increasingly dogmatic LGBTQ-pushing public schools control over the narrative is often in direct contradiction to what our religious beliefs (and leaders) teach. My own Catholic bishop, Michael F. Burbridge of the Arlington Diocese, earlier this year declared: The Church teaches that a person is created male or female No one is transgender.

Cohens position fails on yet another point: though raised Jewish, Cohen is an atheist, and, according to her own website, writing a book about raising my children as atheists. Yet it wasnt all that long ago that many public schools explicitly acknowledged the existence of God in the curriculum and school-sponsored activities, and promoted prayer and Bible study. Presumably, Cohen would not want that kind of education foisted upon her own progeny.

Thus we can see the hypocritical double standard at work in the arguments of Cohen and Co. Because such liberals agree with the current political, sexual and racial ideological agenda of many public school districts and teachers, they argue that parents need to trust educators and school administrators. Of course, in an earlier era when they would have flatly disagreed with the public school curriculum on any number of issues, they would have been up in arms, asserting their parental rights and taking their case to the courts.

Yet there is hope here. The more we identify and expose the true ideological agenda of liberal ideologues, the more they seem to double down on their own insane revolutionary program. Although some on the left have made an awkward backstep on critical race theory, gender dysphoria, and blatantly pornographic content, many others, including Cohen, are showing their true colors. In the same piece, Cohen even defends a writing course in Ohio for high school seniors that included writing prompts like write a sex scene you wouldnt show your mom. (Her reasoning is that 17- and 18-year-olds are already imagining sex scenes, so why not let them write about such things in school.)

This is, to put it bluntly, batty. There is reason to hope that most parents know this, and would prefer their kids learn how to read, write, do math, and other essential skills than be indoctrinated in every latest sexual craze among the technocratic elite and academia. There is also reason to hope that most parents are intelligent enough to recognize that Cohen and Co.s objective is to undermine parental independence and oversight so they can get on with the indoctrination of Americas next generation via their own biased curricula.

At least people like Sharon Kass of Washington seem to get it. In a Nov. 22 WaPo letter to the editor, she noted that public school libraries, though full of pro-LGBTQ material, are leftist indoctrination centers. Moreover, she notes, they would never feature books like former diplomat and Voice of America Director Robert R. Reillys Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. Theres that pesky double standard again!

The current education debate in this country is the gift that keeps on giving. The more we press secular educators, curriculum developers, and their advocates in the media, Hollywood, and the academy, the more they disclose their true intentions. They want our childrens minds (and bodies), and they want us to either surrender them or play along by what Cohen calls child-to-parent intergenerational training. Its ideas like that parents need to keep demanding leftist activists explain. I have a feeling the answer will be yet another gift.

Casey Chalk is a senior contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelors in history and masters in teaching from the University of Virginia and a masters in theology from Christendom College. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands.

Read more here:

Deadliest Political Gaffe Of The Year Goes To: Keeping Parents Out Of Classrooms - The Federalist

The song Baby Its Cold Outside has certainly had its fair share of controversy in recent years. In 2018, the infamous Christmas classic made headlines when numerous radio stations moved to scrap the song after its lyrics were deemed controversial.

Although many conservatives may see this as another example of cancel culture plaguing our society, I view it as a necessary development for a more progressive civilization. Such grotesque and misogynistic rhetoric should not be tolerated, especially in supposed family-oriented music.

While the attempted canceling of Baby Its Cold Outside is a step in the right direction, it didnt go nearly far enough. There are plenty of ChristmasI mean, holidaysongs that contain themes that are completely unacceptable in 2021.

So, in order to make the most wonderful time of the year more inclusive and tolerant, Ill be leaving you with a list of the most offensive Christmas songs that absolutely must go this holiday season. After all, the best way to spread Christmas cheer is to cancel what does not adhere.

On its face, Rudolph sounds like a nice, elegant Christmas tune that your kids will enjoy. But a further investigation into the songs lyrics reveals just how problematic this old-time classic truly is.

Take, for instance, lines like all of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names and they never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games, which blatantly glorify bullying of those who are different. Whats more, the other reindeer and Santa decide that Rudolph has some semblance of worth only after they use him as a flashlight to guide them through the wave of fog disrupting their Christmas Eve deliveries.

And who can ignore the undertones of animal abuse pervasive throughout the entire song. The idea that Santa can just brutally force these magical creatures into a life of indentured servitude is beyond repulsive and serves as one of the many reasons this song has got to go.

Frosty is a song that perfectly encapsulates the patriarchy that has dominated American society and Western civilization. Not only do the writers assume Frostys gender is male-identifying by including he/his pronouns in the lyrics, but they also dismiss any inclusion of snow-birthing-persons. Such sexism is emblematic of the patriarchal oppression all snow-birthing-persons face in their daily lives and professional careers.

To put the cherry on top, the writers also found it acceptable for Frosty to have two eyes made out of coal. The incorporation of a filthy fossil fuel demonstrates the continued ignorance of the dangers posed by the ongoing climate crisis.

In its day, this classic tune was cute. But, after the MeToo movement, it is completely unacceptable. Nowhere in the song does Santa give Mommy any consent to kiss him. Perhaps he did give it to her, but it was prior to the songs protagonist coming downstairs to witness the smooch under the mistletoe? Until such an agreement is confirmed by both parties, however, it is within the best interest of society to give this song the boot (#SantaToo).

While the songs protagonist may be dreaming of a white Christmas, Ill be dreaming of a world where this kind of blatant white supremacy isnt a mainstream holiday single. Not all Christmases have to be white. I just dont know when the white-dominant society will get the picture and stop pushing this kind of blatant racism.

Some will argue that this song is actually about the wish for snow on Christmas Day. But if such a claim is true, then where is the representation for snow-of-color? I mean, havent the writers ever heard of yellow snow?

Im sorry, but my troubles are not out of sight, because this song is completely lacking any form of inclusivity. The writers of this yuletide classic clearly didnt get the memo that society is all about the holidays now, and that any holiday-themed music must incorporate other seasonal celebrations. Unless this song is updated to include commemorations like Hannukah and Kwanzaa, it should be thrown into the chimney fire to burn.

Unlike other songs on this list, the major problems of Little Drummer Boy arent found in the lyrics, but in its historical connotations. Drummer boys played a critical role during the Civil War, oftentimes marching alongside Confederate soldiers. In the middle of battle, for instance, they would use drumbeats to send orders or signals from military leaders to troops engaged in combat.

While the writing of Little Drummer Boy had nothing to do with the Civil War, the implications evoked by the song are simply too great to ignore. Much like the Confederate statues that pollute our parks, this song deserves to be melted down and discarded.

Hitting grandmothers with sleighs is flat-out wrong. I cant believe that has to be said, but apparently the songs writers thought it was comical enough to write a Christmas jingle about. The outward contempt for grandmothers and the elderly is so potent that Im willing to bet the writers are also anti-vaxxers who refuse to triple mask and wear face shields to protect seniors from COVID-19.

Much like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, this song flawlessly quantifies the abuse facing so many animals in America. Despite their rhythmic vocals and spot-on pitch, nothing the chipmunks ever do satisfies Daves ambitions for perfection. His continuous screaming at Alvin is appalling to hear and exemplifies everything wrong with the white, male-dominant society endangering the livelihoods of animals all across the country.

If you thought that a tune like Deck the Halls was free of sin, youd be flat-out wrong. With lyrics like [D]on we now our gay apparel, this song is simply not acceptable in 2021. The flagrant appropriation of LGBT culture and dress wear is beyond abhorrent. How such offensive content has eluded so many for so long is a reflection of the homophobic bigotry prevalent throughout Western civilization.

Last Christmas defines our corrupt, capitalist system so incredibly well. Verses like Last Christmas, I gave you my heart, [B]ut the very next day, you gave it away are indicative of the greed and avarice harbored by Americas wealthy, upper class.

Despite the protagonists sincerity in giving away his/her heart, the recipient sells it to someone else almost immediately just to make a quick buck. Teaching our children these ideals through holiday songs will only further glamorize the failed and racist economic system known as capitalism, which is why this song has got to go.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Link:

10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 - The Federalist

Click the video to watch this episode of Culture War, plus an interview with the Conservative Partnership Institutes Rachel Bovard.

Its been two weeks since the Supreme Court of the United States heard the oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization the seminal case that could finally see a change to our countrys half-century abortion regime; a regime among the most barbaric on the entire planet.

Its always cryptic, reading too far into oral arguments. Everything seemed to go well Justice Brett Kavanaugh (a worry to many pro-lifers) seemed deeply skeptical of the lefts arguments; Chief Justice John Roberts, always cautiously liberal, correctly compared Americas abortion laws to those of China and North Korea.

By the end of the afternoon, folks from NBC Newss legal correspondent Pete King all the way back to our own Mollie Hemingway figured the old ways were DOA.

But things change. In March of 2012, the court heard three days of arguments in a case called National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius the first major case on the constitutionality of Obamacare. During those six hours of arguments, Roberts was engaged; fired up even. The Affordable Care Act looked to be in trouble.

Three months later, Roberts twisted the Senates own words and promises to write a tortured majority opinion upholding President Barack Obamas signature achievement on absurd legal grounds.

The individual mandate, the unprecedented command to buy a product whether you wanted it or not, was actually just a tax, Roberts said. Sure, it hadnt been a tax when they were writing the Affordable Care Act three years before, but now it was under a brand-new definition Roberts had just invented, tossing out years of established norms.

According to court reporting at the time, Roberts originally was part of a majority to strike down Obamacare. The opinions were being written; they were debating follow-up questions like whether the individual mandate would be separated or if the whole law had to come down. But then Roberts balked, and despite a month-long effort by Justice Anthony Kennedy to make him flip back, he stayed in President Barack Obamas corner

Weird, right? What could have changed so much in Robertss mind during those three months?

There are a lot of possible answers to that question, which is why its so notoriously difficult to read into arguments. Maybe his liberal colleagues swayed him; maybe he came to a different conclusion after a particularly lucid daydream.

The most likely answer, however based on everything we know about Roberts, and what drives him; what he cares about was media coverage. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, avoid even reading press coverage of the Court so they cant be influenced by it, even subconsciously. Roberts is not one of those justices: He is a man who cares deeply about how he is perceived; meaning he cares deeply about how he is portrayed.

And for those two spring months in 2012, the corporate media echo chamber was united and resounding: The court, they said, can only be seen as legitimate if it contorts itself to do what we want it to do. In The New York Times, an op-ed by Duke law professor Paul Carrington said that if the court dared to toss out the individual mandate, Congress should retaliate by imposing term limits on the remaining justices.

Many other articles suggested similar tactics. If the court wouldnt uphold the Democratic agenda, then the court was obsolete. Even the president chimed in.It was an absolute triumph of popularity over justice; the ultimate vindication of high school mean-girl rules.

But surely our corporate press has maintained objectivity and decorum over this past week, right? Lets take a look.

After last weeks oral arguments, CNN legal analyst and would-be-abortion-facilitator Jeffrey Toobin called the day, a real blow against the Supreme Courts institutional reputation.

Terry Moran, the senior national correspondent at ABC News, went on Good Morning America to call Justice Kavanaughs line of questioning ominous.

Theres no legal argument here, CNNs John King insisted, claiming, we will see what will be ultimately interpreted as a political decision.

MSNBCs Nicole Wallace used the word stench seven times to refer to the possibility of striking down abortion.

The New York Times published what Republican Sen. Josh Hawley correctly called an unhinged rant in favor of abortion by Linda Greenhouse a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who for three decades had surprise covered the Supreme Court for surprise The New York Times.

Fake war hero Brian Williams hosted a panel where he accused the Democrats of being cowards who werent willing to destroy the validity of the Supreme Court to save national abortion.

Who, he asked the panel, thinks that a party that was clowned into putting Kavanaugh and Barrett on the Court, that still acts as if McConnell is in charge of the filibuster, is going to gather the votes, the guts, and the ability to somehow pack or alter in any way the Supreme Court?

CNNs Anderson Cooper put on his super-serious intellectual glasses to talk to Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy about how Republicans are hypocritical to oppose abortion while not wanting to ban all guns.

MSNBCs Alicia Menendez brought on a Black Lives Matter activist to talk about her very important tweet that, the roots of the pro-life movement are about preserving segregation and building a white supremacist religious right.

Tell me more, Menendez pleaded.

CNN wasnt about to be left out of the racism game either. Host John Berman introduced the subject as one that could fundamentally alter life and choice for millions of women, before tossing to assistant law professor and CBS law contributor Alexis Hoag, who called federalism [quote] terrifying, and compared opposing Roe v. Wade to being pro-slavery.

MSNBCs Joy Reid said a decision to roll back our abortion laws would turn all women into secondary constitutional citizens, and force them to leave the babies on the doorstep of the firehouse.

It hurt her as a black woman and a sister, she continued, to see Justice Clarence Thomas on the bench, comparing banning abortion to state-sponsored enslavement. Pregnancy, she insisted can actually be dangerous to a womans health, especially when you live in a country like the United States.

Human dough ball Elie Mystal agreed wholeheartedly, insisting that, a fetus is not deserving of full personhood rights, and that Christians, are only concerned about the right of a fetus when that right can be used to diminish the rights of women.

Comb-over artist Chuck Todd competed with them all, throwing an on-air pro-abortion tantrum that would satisfy the most cringe-worthy of teenaged activists.

Youre worried about the liberty of the unvaccinated, he told Republican Sen. Mike Braun, what about the liberty of the woman who doesnt want to carry a pregnancy to term? Why should the government force that you dont want the government to force people to get a vaccine?

Not to be left out, supposed comedian Stephen Colbert told his audience that since we might not be allowed to kill our children anymore, in some states, where voters choose it, then we no longer live in a democracy.Amazingly, his take was less demented than the supposed comedians of The View.

This is just some of the coverage weve seen in the less than two weeks since the oral arguments were made. The case is far from lost and theres no doubt panic is spreading fast through Democratic ranks, but notice this: The left knows the fight is not over.

They know they can still pull a win out. Theyve done it before; they can do it again. And this is a key and fundamental difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP: They dont stop.

Whens the last time you heard a Democratic politician say, Hey guys, elections over; thanks for your help, everyone head home and well see you again in two years?You havent heard that because they have never said anything remotely like that.

Instead what youll hear is, The election is over, but the fight has just begun. They count on their activists to come with them and help them in the political fights ahead. They count on the media, too.

The Dobbs arguments were a long time coming. Many people fought their whole lives for that day. Too many who prayed and who loved and who gave it their all never even lived to see it. Were lucky we did.

But the fights not over. We cant just go home and let the court decide what the court decides. Theres a role for us now, and its in our newspapers and magazines; in our letters to the editor and our town hall meetings; its in our marches and our rallies and our prayers.

On a sunny day two weeks ago, our politics in this country changed forever, no matter the outcome. But this is our moment; what weve been fighting for all these years. And we must seize it.

See more here:

Supreme Court's Abortion Argument Isn't Over. The Left Is Still Fighting - The Federalist

Shortly after the end of the Constitutional Convention, a national debate began about whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Newspapers nationwide published essays both for and against ratification Those who supported ratification of the Constitution were known as Federalists.

The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, that appeared in New York newspapers, primarily, the Independent Journal and the New York Packet, between October of 1787 and August of 1788. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison did not sign their names to the essays; they chose to publish using assumed names such as Publius, which was a reference to a Roman consul, Publius Valerius Publicola.The essays urged New York delegates to ratify the Constitution. In 1788, the essays were published in a bound volume entitled the Federalist and eventually became known as the Federalist Papers.

Some people felt that the Constitution would give the central government too much power and would limit individual freedom. To address these fears, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison analyzed the Constitution in detail and outlined the built in checks and balances meant to divide power between the three branches of government and preserve the rights of the people and states.

Even though they did not play a significant role in New York's decision to ratify the Constitution, the Federalist Papers remain an important collection today because they offer insight into the intentions of key individuals who debated the elements of the Constitution.

To learn more, see theFederalist Paperssite at the Library of Congress.

View post:

The Federalist Papers: 1787-1788 - GPO

The anti-Federalists and their opposition to ratifying the Constitution were a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Amercians' civil liberties. The anti-Federalists were chiefly concerned with too much power invested in the national government at the expense of states. (Howard Chandler Christy's interpretation of the signing of the Constitution, painted in 1940.)

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.

Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution, drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, needed to be ratified by nine or more state conventions (and by all states that wanted to take part in the new government). A clash erupted over ratification, with the Anti-Federalists opposing the creation of a strong national government and rejecting ratification and the Federalists advocating a strong union and adoption of the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French.

To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution.

The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius.

Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer).

By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:

The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain.

Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties. Upon ratification, James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789. The states ratified ten of these, which took effect in 1791 and are known today collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not filter into the presidency of George Washington.

Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamiltons aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jeffersons view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party.

The latter party, led by Jefferson and James Madison, became known as the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern Democratic Party.

The Democratic-Republican Party gained national prominence through the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1801.

This election is considered a turning point in U.S. history because it led to the first era of party politics, pitting the Federalist Party against the Democratic-Republican Party. This election is also significant because it served to repudiate the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts which made it more difficult for immigrants to become citizens and criminalized oral or written criticisms of the government and its officials and it shed light on the importance of party coalitions.

In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party proved to be more dominant due to the effective alliance it forged between the Southern agrarians and Northern city dwellers.

The election of James Madison in 1808 and James Monroe in 1816 further reinforced the importance of the dominant coalitions within the Democratic-Republican Party.

With the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Quincy Adams from politics, the Federalist Party disintegrated.

After the War of 1812 ended, partisanship subsided across the nation. In the absence of the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party stood unchallenged. The so-called Era of Good Feelings followed this void in party politics, but it did not last long. Some scholars continue to see echoes of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates in modern party politics.

This article was originally published in 2009. Mitzi Ramos is an Instructor of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University.

Read this article:

Anti-Federalists | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected former President Donald Trumps claim of executive privilege, holding that the archivist of the United States could provide a tranche of Trumps presidential records to the Houses Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

In a unanimous ruling, the federal appellate court concluded that President Bidens conclusion that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States controlled and that the archivist, therefore, must hand over the first of three sets of documents requested. The court added, however, that it would await an assessment from the Biden administration before determining whether other sets of documents must likewise be handed over.

Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, authored the 68-page opinion that fellow Obama appointee Robert Wilkins and Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. In rejecting Trumps request that the court enjoin the archivist from providing the House Select Committee copies of his presidential papers, the federal appellate court considered the controlling preliminary injunction standard that asks whether the moving partyhere Trumphas established a likelihood of success on the merits, shows irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, demonstrates that the equities favor an injunction, and proves that the injunction is in the public interest.

The courts analysis in Trump v. Thompson focused mainly on the first factor and whether Trump held a likelihood of success on the merits. He did not, according to the D.C. Circuit, which concluded Trump executive privilege claim failed because a rare and formidable alignment of factors supports the disclosure of the documents at issue.

President Biden has made the considered determination that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States given the January 6th Committees compelling need to investigate and remediate an unprecedented and violent attack on Congress itself, the court said. Further, Congress has established that the information sought is vital to its legislative interests and the protection of the Capitol and its grounds. Finally, the Political Branches are engaged in an ongoing process of negotiation and accommodation over the document requests, the court explained, noting its hesitancy to circumvent that process.

Although the court considered the other preliminary injunction factors, those merely bolstered the courts conclusion that Trump was not entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the release of his documents.

Given the important legal issue in play, namely executive privilege, it seems likely Trump will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, Trumps legal team would be wise to follow the lead of the presidents former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who just Wednesday filed a complaint in federal court against Houses January 6th Select Committee and the individual committee members.

Meadowss lawsuit alleges the defendants are seeking to illegally compel Meadows to provide documents and testimony to the committee and that the committee illegally subpoenaed the former chief of staffs cellular provider, Verizon Wireless.

Meadows took to the federal D.C. district court after the Houses Select Committee warned him that if he refused to provide the documents to the committee and to testify voluntarily, he would be cited for contempt. Verizon Wireless had also informed Meadows that it had received a subpoena from the committee and intended to provide Meadows private cellular information unless it received a court document challenging the subpoena by December 15, 2021.

Over the course of 40-plus pages, Meadows presents a litany of reasons the subpoenas are invalid, but his first argumentthat the subpoenas are invalid because they were not issued by a duly authorized committeeboth presents Meadows with a strong argument to quash the subpoenas and provides Trump fodder in his separate lawsuit and claim of executive privilege.

House Resolution 503 created the January 6, 2021, Select Committee, Meadowss argument begins, then stressing that Section 2(a) of that resolution requires House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. But Speaker Pelosi has appointed only nine members to the Select Committee: seven Democrats and two Republicans, the complaint alleges. None of these members was appointed from the selection of five GOP congressman put forth by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Meadowss lawsuit continues.

Because Speaker Pelosi failed to appoint the requisite number of members, as mandated by House Resolution 503, it was not a duly constituted Select Committee, Meadowss lawsuit argues. Without establishing a duly constituted Select Committee, as mandated in the Resolution, the nine members lack the authority to act under House Resolution 503, the argument continues, including by issuing subpoenas under Section 5(c)(6) of House Resolution 503.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the problem caused by Pelosis unprecedented refusal to seat Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, which led to only two representatives with Rs behind their names, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, agreeing to serve on the committee.

Further, while House Resolution 503 provides for business to be conducted by a quorum of members, the problem here is not the number of members participating but the number of congressmen appointed to the committee. Also, because House Resolution 503 requires the appointment of 13 members, Pelosis failure to appoint the requisite number of committee members means the select committee was never properly constituted. That failure, Meadows lawsuit argues, renders the Select Committee invalid and without the authority to issue subpoenas.

A court may hesitate to hold that the Select Committee was never properly constituted because Republicans, by refusing to accept committee appointments, prevented Pelosi from complying with House Resolution 503s mandate that 13 members be appointed to the Select Committee. But such parliamentary maneuvers are par for the course for Congress, and courts readily require Congress and congressional committees to comply with their own rules.

Here, the Democrats didnt: They failed to appoint five Republicans to the select committee as required by House Resolution 503. Unless there is a properly constituted select committee, the purported committee members should lack the authority provided under the resolution.

Pelosis refusal to seat Jordan and Banks on the select committee proves significant for a second reason that segues back to Trumps case and his claim of executive privilege: It proves that the supposed probe into the events of January 6, 2021 is an unserious political ploy and a court should take that reality into account in balancing the competing interests.

Once in focus, one can see there is a strong interest in preserving executive privilege, and none in pushing a partisan dog and donkey show trial.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

The rest is here:

This Lawsuit Raises Trumps Best Defense Against The Jan ...

Its no secret that corporate reporters arent the most poised or articulate about handling or talking about guns, but a recent interaction between ABC News reporter Devin Dwyer and a mother of five in New York might take the cake.

ABC News aired a segment on Tuesday night previewing the laws and background of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for on Wednesday. The coverage is part of the corporate outlets larger Rethinking Gun Violence series, which is often used to amplify anti-gun activists war on firearms.

In the interview, Dwyer asks Cheryl Apple, a small business owner and recent first-time gun owner, to justify why she felt the need to apply for an unrestricted license to carry her 9 mm pistol. Her response to Dwyer is perfect.

Do we really want a whole bunch of Cheryls running around with pistols in the grocery store? Dwyer asked.

Yeah, we probably do because Cheryl is trained, Apple replied indignantly. I feel proficient with my weapon, I feel secure with my weapon, and I feel confident with my weapon. I dont think the Cheryls are the one[s] out there that are hurting people and committing the crimes and being unsafe with their guns.

Apple told Dwyer earlier in the segment that she petitioned the state for permission to carry her gun so that she could feel safe in her neighborhood near Albany, N.Y., which has experienced a recent uptick in violent crime. Scenes of her pistol training with an instructor at an indoor range played over a voice track explaining that it took her 10 months to complete steps including a background check, a safety seminar, and even an interview with a judge before she was approved to protect herself.

That footage and the long process Apple went through before she was allowed to carry her firearm, however, didnt stop Dwyer from asking his second ignorant question of the day.

You ever worried you might make a mistake, accidentally shoot somebody or shoot the wrong person? Dwyer pressed.

No, no I dont, Apple confidently explained. I would have before I took this class but now I dont, not at all.

His assertion is not quite as bad as the political journalist in Vermont who said his first time shooting an AR-15 felt like a meteor had struck the earth. But it definitely casts doubt on his ability to understand that there shouldnt be a problem with good guys who are properly accredited, trained, and always practice gun safety while carrying a firearm for self-defense.

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

Link:

Based Mom Schools Reporter On Why Good Guys Should Have Guns

News stories come and go every year, but what we remember are the people at the center of them. The Federalist staff has a few of those people in mind, for better or worse, that stood out in 2021. Here are our picks for the winners and losers of 2021.

Winner: Parents

Some of the biggest winners this year were parents who saw the radicalization of their childrens education and fought back. What started as fighting against the tyrannicalteachers unionsand schools that wanted to keep kids at homeglued to screensin the name ofprotecting them from COVIDmorphed into a national movement of peopleyoung and old who saw somethingwrong in their communities and did something about it.

Parents upset by theprevalent racismandradical gender ideologyin their childrens schools found their voices in social media groups and at protests, spoke out at school board meetings despitehurdles created by schoolsand theBiden administration, learned how to file open records requests, and, in some cases, even gained enough traction tovote out corrupt and woke school officialsand replace them with better candidates. Parents inLoudoun County specifically are highlighted in The Federalists documentary Meet The Parents: How The Moms And Dads Of Loudoun County Took Back Virginia.

[WATCH: Meet The Parents: How The Moms And Dads Of Loudoun County Took Back Virginia]

Loser: Anthony Fauci

It should be no surprise that Fauci is at the top of the loser list this year. In addition to being a complete political hack whomoves the goalpoststo suitwhatever agendakeeps him onTVand in the good graces of thecorporate media, reports released this year found that Faucilied to Congressabout funding for gain-of-function research,colludedwith Big Tech tocensor conservatives, and evenauthorized the torture of beaglesin the name of science. Emails obtained by corrupt media who wereunwilling to criticizeFauci also detailed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases directors tendency tohidekeyCOVID-19 information from the public to protect himself.

Winner: Kyle Rittenhouse

Defamed and smeared as a white supremacist and domestic terrorist by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the entire corporate press, Kyle Rittenhouse was vindicated by a jury of his peers last month year,acquitted on all counts and completely exonerated. The verdict affirmed what everyone who had seen video footage of that night of rioting in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020 already knew: Rittenhouse was chased by a violent mob that meant to harm or kill him, and he shot three men, killing two of them, in self-defense. His victory in the courtroom was a powerfulreminder that the American judicial system, despite its flaws, can still work no matter what defamatory nonsense is spewed by our elites on social media.

Winner: Mexican drug cartels and migrant traffickers

The Biden border crisis, which began as soon as President Joe Biden took office in January and signed a raft of executive orders undoing most of former President Trumps successful border policies, has massively enriched the cartels and migrant smugglers who control northern Mexico. These criminal organizations force migrants to pay thousands for passage through cartel-controlled territory and over the border, often collecting information on migrants and their families and forcing them into debt bondage long after they have settled in the United States.

Thanks to Bidens failed border policies, which have created massive incentives for illegal immigration, cartel-associated smuggling networks are making billions in annual profits at the border. As long as Bidens policies remain in place,this will be the new normal: record levels of illegal immigration and record profits for the cartels that control the border.

Winners: Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers

In a year full of elite losers, two football stars won big for very different reasons. My winners for 2021 are Tom Brady who carried a host of fans with him to Tampa Bay and now looks poised not only to be in (and win?) Super Bowl LVI, but to clinch his fourth MVP title and Aaron Rodgers. Although Rodgers suffered a toe injury, missed a game with the Wuhan virus, and continues a rocky relationship with Green Bay, he showed some real tenacity and came out on top on vaccines and his bodily autonomy.

Losers: The Cuomo Brothers

Where to even begin with the losers? Honorable mentions include the entire Bachelor franchise, which went up in the woke flames and never recovered; the Pulitzer Prize board, whose credibility is just completely gone after Russiagate; and Jussie Smollett, who will never be the guy who didnt say this:

The losers of the year, however, are the Cuomo brothers, who started on top of the world and couldnt have ended lower, mired in sexual scandal, exposed lethal policies, corruption, and an embarrassing resignation and termination. Farewell, losers. You wont be missed.

Winner: Kim Kardashian West

In reality, Kim Kardashian West has been winning for many years now, but 2021 seems to be the year that the rest of the world truly started taking her seriously. Maybe its because it was the year she finally ditched her manic, genius husband (although thats no doubt a loss for her family and her children), or maybe its because she finally ended her familys iconic reality television show (only to start filming another). Whatever the reason, the wins keep coming to Calabasas.

Her most recent win is passing the California baby bar exam, also known as the First-Year Law Students Examination. She failed the exam three times during the last two years, but after finally passing, Kim is eligible to sit for the final bar exam.

Other wins include her October hosting of Saturday Night Live, which may have been one of the only funny episodes this season, as well as her growing name recognition in the world of high fashion. Kanye introduced Kim to the world of fashion, including design icons like Balenciaga and Fendi, but this year Kim proved she has style beyond what Kanye emails her. Besides winning fashion awards and launching her own high fashion lines, Kim dominated the fashion event of the year, Anna Wintours Met Gala, with her transgressive, faceless Balenciaga ensemble.

Loser: Travis Scott

The loser of the Kardashian-Jenner circle is not Kanye, who is sadly still pleading with Kim to come back to him (and refusing to sign the divorce papers), but Kylie Jenners partner and baby daddy, rapper Travis Scott. We already knew Travis was a loser when he committed to a second child with Kylie while still failing to commit to her in marriage, but the bigger loss this year happened at his November Astroworld music festival that left 10 fans dead in Houston.

Scott now faces a $750 million lawsuit and has angered the families of the victims after his first interview in which he failed to take any responsibility for the violent crowd. Even though Scott has a history of inciting music-festival crowds to ignore security and violently storm the stage, he has painted himself a victim of the tragic Astroworld incident, claiming his earpiece rendered him completely unaware of the stampeding crowd in front of him.

Loser: Simone Biles

Because she literally lost err, decided not to compete for her team at the 2021 Olympics.

Winner: Britney Spears

After being locked under the bondage of conservatorship for more than a decade, the princess of pop is finally free.In November, Britney Spears reclaimed her autonomy when an LA judge ruled the singers court-ordered conservatorship had finally run its course.

Reserved for those who suffer debilitating conditions, which include severe mental issues or old age, Spears spent years fighting for her freedom. The pop stars productivity over the 13 years since her conservatorships inception cast doubt the arrangement was ever needed, where the world-famous icon filled stadiums on three world tours with four new albums amassing a Forbes-estimated fortune of $60 million in the process, a fortune off-limits to the singer who earned it.

In June, Spears gave a full-throated plea for the conservatorship to end in her first public remarks on the arrangement that suffocated her for years.I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive, she said. Five months later, the judge agreed.

Losers:

Liz Cheney

Liz Cheney started the year off on a crusade to recruit Republican support for the Democrats snap impeachment of President Donald Trump in January. She finished the year fabricating evidence in pursuit of the same goal ridding the Republican Party of Trumps influence post-presidency.

In the end, only nine other Republicans voted with Cheney in support of conviction, several of whom had already declared their intent to do so. The futile effort offered a preview of bad year for the Wyoming lawmaker who now faces a competitive primary challenge from Trump-endorsed attorney Harriet Hageman.

After getting kicked from House leadership for her persistent antagonism of the Republican voter and efforts to undermine the conference she chaired, Cheney is now raking in money from the same donors who fund the Lincoln Project to save her hopes of securing a fourth term.

Lincoln Project

The Lincoln Project continued to expose itself as a haven for bad-faith grifters this year when the blue-dollar-funded PAC was caught staging a race hoax in Virginia.

Its leadership began to flee at the start of the year as the scandal-plagued group cratered under credible allegations of sexual misconduct against co-founder John Weaver, who resigned after 21 men came forward. Some were underage when Weaver allegedly approached them inappropriately.

A Democrat super PAC masquerading as Republican, the latter label given to the group by a complicit media establishment, the group founded to oppose Donald Trump has struggled to find relevance in an era of the post-Trump presidency. Just two weeks ago, Politico ran the headline, No one seems to like the Lincoln Project anymore.

Girls Sports

A lot of men are breaking records for women. On day one of his presidency, Joe Biden signed an executive order seeking the erasure of womens sports by mandating federally-funded schools allow biological males compete in female leagues.

Earlier this month, 22-year-old Lia Thomas, who spent three years swimming for the University of Pennsylvania as Will Thomas, set another record in the 1650-meter freestyle. In November, Thomas set records in the 200-meter and 500-meter freestyle races.

More womens records will be broken by more men competing as women.

Continue reading here:

The Federalist Staff's 2021 Winners And Losers Of The Year - The Federalist