Page 75«..1020..74757677..8090..»

Category Archives: Federalist

Why The Wisconsin Elder-Fraud Voting Story Has National Implications – The Federalist

Posted: November 5, 2021 at 9:53 pm

Last week, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriffs office held a 75-minute press conference to announce the results of their investigation into absentee voting at residential care facilities. As reported here, the press conference showed that the Wisconsin Election Commission illegally directed municipalities not to use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities, but instead to transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.

That illegal directive resulted in apparent violations of election law by employees of the Ridgewood Care Center, a Racine nursing home. The evidence also suggests, at a minimum, the improper influence of elderly voters.

The significance of this story, however, spans much beyond the 72 counties comprising this midwestern state that broke by 20,682 votes to Joe Biden. Rather, an honest review of the evidence presented by Sheriff Christopher Schmaling and lead investigator Sgt. Michael Luell exposes three significances of national importance.

First, Thursdays press briefing exposed state officials utter disregard for election law and their inability to stop flagrant misconduct before elections. The WEC knew full well it was directing clerks to violate mandatory provisions of Wisconsins election code and so did the clerks, yet the lawlessness went unstopped.

Indeed, the WEC did act lawlessly, as is clear from the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureaus October 2021 report that stressed, statutes set forth the exclusive means of absentee voting in person in residential care facilities and qualified retirement homes. A municipal clerk must appoint at least two special voting deputies to supervise absentee voting by individuals in such facilities and homes, the report explained (emphasis added).

Yet not only did no one stop the WECs directive, unless someone steps up to prosecute those responsible for directing this apparent violation of election law, it seems unlikely there will be any consequences to the state election officials.

Not only are there no consequences, but there is also no outrage beyond a few on the right screaming into the void that election integrity matters. Meanwhile, the corrupt corporate media ignores the story and the left spins it, as Democratic Party of Wisconsin interim executive director Devin Remiker did, calling the press conference nothing more than a publicity stunt.

No wonder, then, we see election officials throughout the country blatantly ignoring the rules that state legislatures have established for elections.

No one should take comfort in the fact that the press conference concerned last election cycle. The 2020 presidential election was not a one-off for election irregularities, but a test year for the new normal of election fraudone perpetrated by election officials, instead of voters.

Election officials in Fairfax County, Virginia showcased this reality two weeks ago once the governors race there turned tight, by adopting a policy to ignore the statutory mandate that absentee ballot applicants include the final four digits of their Social Security numbers with their signature. Friday then saw a state court judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging that law, finding the plaintiff in the case lacked standing to sue.

With the election set for Tuesday and absentee ballots already returned, Virginia is destined to repeat the cycle seen throughout the country in 2020: violations of election law with no consequences.

A second lesson from Thursdays briefing concerns the victims of the election fraud, in addition to every voter disenfranchised by a fraudulent vote.

The oft-repeated response to undisputed evidence that election officials ignored the law, or voters illegally voted in 2020, ran that the laws were mere technicalities. We saw that in Georgia with the secretary of states office Chief Operating Officer Gabriel Sterling reportedly tellingAtlantas WSB-TV, The reality is these are normal, everyday Georgians who are just trying to exercise their right to vote in a very weird year, after being confronted with evidence that one voter admitted he cast a vote in a county in which he no longer lived.

This response, of course, is wrong in its own right, as every illegal vote disenfranchises a lawful voter. What happened in Wisconsin, however, should penetrate the press and the publics apathy to voter fraud because the targets were vulnerable seniors, moms and dads of everyday Americans.

Wisconsins election code and the requirement for SVDs sought to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses.

Yet, once election officials dispensed with the SVDs, that is exactly what happened, with one former employee of the Ridgewood Care Center saying one senior who voted, was leery about signing her name because [she] was unsure if she was voting for the right people.

This problem is also not limited to Wisconsin, with the American Constitutional Rights Union (ACRU) receiving tips of similar abuse of vulnerable voters throughout the country. The ACRU, the nations leading advocate for the protection of vulnerable voters, sees the abuse of elderly and vulnerable voters as a nationwide problem, and in 2019 launched a Protect Elderly Votes Project to protect elderly and disabled voters in residential facilities.

Yet even when it is a matter of protecting elderly and disabled voters, and even when presented with specific, detailed evidence of such elder abuse, leftist media ignores the issue, proving the corporate press just does not care about election integrity. The same holds true for Democrats whose response, instead of outrage, was to pretend this press conference was about Donald Trump.

This is yet another attempt to attack our democracy and cast doubt on a free and fair election, in which Wisconsinites elected Joe Biden, Wisconsin Democratic Party head Remiker said in response to the press conference.

No one knows, however, who the seniors voted for, as the Racine County Sheriffs Office repeated numerous times on Thursday. The members of the WEC also come from both parties. In short, the only ones making election integrity about politics are the Democrats and the press.

The Racine County Sheriffs Office press conference exposed a third reality with national significance: The summary of the nearly year-long investigation illustrates how law enforcement officers who are serious about complaints of voter fraud handle a case. It contrasts starkly with the unserious response seen throughout the country by secretary of states offices, legislative bodies, and attorneys general.

In the moderate-sized Wisconsin county, Luell gathered evidence via subpoena, and interviewed family members, staff members, and local election officials. He pulled the voter applications and envelopes used for voting in the 2020 election, compared the participation rates to past elections, and looked to the potential victims records of voting going back to 2012. He also reviewed visitor lists, the governing provisions of the Election Code, and the WECs documents and proceedings.

In contrast, other states such as Arizona and Georgia, while conducting audits, have apparently failed to do the legwork necessary to follow-up on potential illegal voting or fraud. In both states, which also broke for Biden in 2020, there is solid evidence of illegal voting that could be easily determined by a thorough investigation. Yet to date there is no evidence that these states have launched the probes necessary to prove (or disprove) the concern.

Earlier this year, the Georgia secretary of states office confirmed they were investigating evidence of more than 10,000 voters illegally voting in a county in which they were not residents. Yet a request by The Federalist last week for the status on that investigation went unanswered.

Such an investigation should be simple, albeit time-consuming, as demonstrated when a local reporter in Georgia went knocking on doors to ask voters about their moves and where they voted, confirming the data provided the secretary of states office.

Maybe, then, there is a fourth take-away from Fridays press conference: Rather than depend on state officials to take election fraud and illegal voting seriously, the complaints should be handed to local law enforcement. That approach could work in Georgia. Given, however, that Democrats have already proven they dont care about election integrity, the evidence will need to be handed to red counties.

That tactic might even have a second unintended but beneficial consequence: prompting Democrats to retaliate by lodging complaints with left-leaning police and sheriffs departments. The majority of Republicans would welcome that development because election integrity matters no matter which side benefits from illegal voting or fraud.

Also, most Republicans dont fear honest investigations into election fraud and illegal voting. That Democrats do is telling.

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.

See the rest here:

Why The Wisconsin Elder-Fraud Voting Story Has National Implications - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Why The Wisconsin Elder-Fraud Voting Story Has National Implications – The Federalist

Grassley: Garland’s Double-Down On Parents Will Have ‘Chilling Effect’ – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

Sen. Chuck Grassley said Attorney General Merrick Garlands stubborn refusal to retract the domestic terrorism memo authorizing federal law enforcement to target frustrated parents who speak out against local school boards will have a chilling effect on parents willingness to hold their childrens education system accountable.

In a Senate floor speech delivered on Monday, the Iowa Republican explained how Garland made an extraordinary admission that he instructed the FBI to get involved with local school boards and doesnt have any plans of rescinding his memo directing that action.

If there is a reason for law enforcement to be involved, its probably something local law enforcement can handle. So the direction will have the effect of intimidating parents who speak out about their childrens education. Make no mistake about it. The attorney general should withdraw that memo, Grassley said.

The National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden administration last month beggingfor federal law enforcement to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents who oppose anti-science mask mandates for children and the infiltration of racist curriculum in schools. The NSBA claimed that federal action was warranted to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.

Most of the incident examples the NSBA used to justify intervention by the Biden administrationdid not escalateto a level that even yielded arrests or charges on the local level, yet mere days after the letter was sent,Garland directedthe FBI and state attorneys to address a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nations public schools.

Attorney General Garland has since testified that he gave the Department of Justice this instruction because of what he read in the National School Boards Association letter to President Biden from just five days earlier. This is an extraordinary deployment of federal law enforcement, when we have problems like a historic murder surge and an open southern border, Grassley said.

Dozens of state school board associationsreported that they were not consulted before the NSBA sent its letter to the administration, and some have even voted to withdraw their membership from the national chapter whose President Viola Garcia and CEO Chip Slaven colluded with the White House before releasing their official demands. The emails also show that the NSBAs board of directors, much like the state school board associations, was not consulted about the plea before it was made public.

The White House helped write a letter to itself comparing parents who love their kids to domestic terrorists but the actual members of the National School Boards Association had nothing to do with it, Grassley said before noting that 17 state attorneys general have written to Garland to state that there has been no spike in violence against local school boards. So, the idea that parents pose any sort of federal threat to local school boards is all just made up what looks to be by the White House for political purposes.

Garland previously told Grassley that he would not rescind the memo despite an apology from the NSBA. This lack of clarification on behalf of parents, Grassley noted, is going to have a chilling effect on their willingness to keep speaking out at school board meetings.

That memo stands, as far as hes concerned. He says he doesnt see how it could be interpreted to mean the FBI will go after impassioned parents. He says there are lines in Constitutional law that law enforcement cant cross. Well, thats true, but hes been working with the Constitution his entire adult life. However, most parents and most school board members arent experts in the First Amendment, Grassley noted.

These parents are reading the attorney generals own words to mean that when they speak passionately at local school board meetings, they could get in trouble with the feds, Grassley continued. So parents are going to stop speaking up at local school board meetings. And thats whats known as a chilling effect. That might be what some at the White House or the National School Boards Association wanted all along, but its a horrible thing for democracy, and it should never happen in the United States of America.

During the same Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Grassleyaccused Garland of moving the DOJ as far left as it can go and targeting parents [who] are trying to protect their children. The Republican also criticized the DOJ for refusing to answer GOP members letters, questions, and demands even though Garland previously promised to be transparent in his confirmation hearing.

Attorney General Garland has said how he wanted to de-politicize the Department of Justice. Now he wants federal prosecutors parsing what parents say to their local school board members, Grassley said in his floor speech. This is because he thinks theres a disturbing spike in violence by parents, but hes not actually sure if thats right. And this instruction is going to scare parents out of speaking their minds at local school board meetings. But the attorney general wont change his instruction to the FBI.

Mr. Attorney General, Grassley continued, parents are not domestic terrorists, and you have only one reasonable choice. Withdraw your memo and focus on the real threats. Stop being a pawn for the White House by politicizing the Department of Justice.

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

Read the original post:

Grassley: Garland's Double-Down On Parents Will Have 'Chilling Effect' - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Grassley: Garland’s Double-Down On Parents Will Have ‘Chilling Effect’ – The Federalist

5 Things We Learned From Left’s Fresh Outrage Over ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

On Wednesday, the phrase Brandon administration was trending on social media after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used it to describe the Biden administration.

Before that, it was a Southwest flight from Houston to Albuquerque on Friday morning that propelled the Lets go, Brandon meme to new heights.

After an AP reporter on the aircraft tweeted the next day her article reporting the pilot using the phrase Lets go, Brandon, over the speaker system, an avalanche of outrage quickly followed from the left, only to meet merriment and mirth from conservatives.

While a simple story, the incident has five fascinating takeaways.

Just as the Southwest story was taking off, NPRs Saturday Weekend Edition provided its audience a primer on the Lets go, Brandon meme. The publicly funded news organization opened its explainer, If youve heard people chanting Lets go, Brandon! or seen someone with a shirt or hat sporting the seemingly jovial message lately, you might be wondering who Brandon is and why so many people are rooting for him.

Now, that might be a fair question a month ago. But surely between October 2, 2021, and this weekend, news-savvy Americans, such as NPR listeners, would have heard of reporter Kelli Stavast informing her NBC audience that the NASCAR fans in the background chanting F-ck Joe Biden were really cheering Lets go, Brandon! for driver Brandon Brown, whom she was interviewing.

That NPR needed to explain the phrase isnt actually supporting a guy named Brandon tells us everything we need to know about the prevalence of self-censorship in the corporate media and the listening (or reading) habits of much of America.

Conservative Americans who get their news from both right-leaning outlets and the corporate media have been enjoying the Lets go, Brandon! meme for nearly a month. Everyone else apparently needs a primer, making the meme even more powerful.

The right has long quipped that the left cant meme, but Lets GoGate proves they dont even know a good meme when they hear it.

After the weekend tutorial on the history of the chant, which has made its way on to everything from hand-painted placards to hats in the halls of Congress, coverage framed the issue as one of a vulgar saying that is circling in conservative circles.

But as I tweeted at the time, with G-rated jargon to make the point, what these @npr dummies dont get and what they will never get is that Lets go Brandon. is an indictment of the cowing media which has refused to report honestly about anything regarding this administration.

Lets go, Brandon works because, in three short words, conservatives can convey their displeasure with Biden while also making fun of a sycophantic media thats trying to protect him from criticism. Thats part of its brilliance. Best yet, the fawning media provided the punch.

If only conservatives could craft a pithy chant that similarly conveyed the in-the-tank medias burying of the Joe Biden pay-to-play scandal revealed from Hunters abandoned porno-filled laptop.

Equally entertaining was this weekends episode of Lets Invent a Scandal, as the left attempted to turn Lets go, Brandon into an indictment of the party of family values by framing the phrase as a vulgarity.Its not.

Its the equivalent of Gosh, darn or h.e. double hockey sticks, or as my dear dad would bark out during my childhood Oh, sugar, or if he was really mad, Oh, ship.

Lets go, Brandon isnt a vulgarity it is a substitute for a vulgarity that still expresses the sentiment of dissatisfaction with President Biden.

In any event, its awfully rich that the same folks complaining about the vulgarity substitute, were ALL CAPS SCREAMING an actual vulgarity one year ago when Trump was president.

Equally delicious is watching the same Hollywood folks bemoan Lets go, Brandon as offensive, when they found F-ck Trump worthy of a tinsel-town standing ovation.

The real icing on the cake, of course, would be if the pilot had actually said, Lets go, Braves, as some think, thereby making Lets go, Braves a new meme that, like its predecessor, both expresses disdain for Biden and mocks the press, while also ridiculing the liberal outrage over Lets go, Brandon.

Hypocrisy is one thing; delusion is an entirely different matter. And Lets go, Brandon has turned into a veritable, verbal Rorschach test for the left.

Do they hear a profanity substitute? Sane.

Do they hear F-ck Joe Biden? Borderline.

Do they hear Hitler? ISIS? Putin? Certifiable.

The weekend prognostics were not good for several public figures.

Returning now to reality, the lefts reaction to the Southwest pilots claimed use of the Lets go, Brandon chant reveals a final truth: The left couldnt handle the conservative equivalent of what the woke corporate culture hammers the right with every day.

From corporate training sessions to mandated pronoun usage, speech codes, commercials, and sponsorships, Big Business in America forces liberal identity politics and causes on customers and employees alike.

When Democrats decried the faux new Jim Crow, Major League Baseball bent the knee to flee Atlanta. When conservatives seek escape in sports, movies, or music, they are whacked back to reality with divisive politicization, disdain, and condescension. And when we fly, were expected to ignore the company-sponsored pins employees don supporting the racist and Marxist organization Black Lives Matters.

But three simple words send the left to the fainting couches.

Welcome to our world.

It isnt as crass, though. It is also definitely not as constant as the one we confront on a daily basis. It is also, however, much more fun because we see the humor in the situation, whereas the lefts just a bunch of self-deceiving scolds.

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.

Here is the original post:

5 Things We Learned From Left's Fresh Outrage Over 'Let's Go, Brandon' - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on 5 Things We Learned From Left’s Fresh Outrage Over ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ – The Federalist

Jurors In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Are Scared, And They Have Reason To Be – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

Kenosha County, Wis., Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder has a fanciful idea: That the trial hes overseeing that includes murder charges against 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse can be removed from politics.

He said so on Monday during jury selection. We dont want to fall into the trap, he said, that many in the media have, a large percentage of the media, and discuss this as a political trial or that there are bigger factors at stake in this trial.

How naive. Of course this is a trial of political consequence and of course there are bigger factors at stake. The potential jurors know it, and thats why during selection several of them expressed concern that their city or they personally might be the targets of rioting or harassment, regardless of the verdict the jury renders.

All of the potential jurors are kept anonymous until after the trial is over but heres a sample of what some of them said during selection:

One said that no matter the verdict, half the country will be up in arms about it.

Another said, Im more afraid of our community and the outsiders of our community that are coming in It just brings us back to August (2020). She also said she was potentially afraid of reliving riots depending on the verdict.

A third said it was scary to be on a case like this one, specifically citing riots and wondering aloud, Am I gonna get home safe?

Those are legitimate concerns. We saw what happened earlier this year in Minneapolis, when businesses and restaurants boarded up their storefronts in anticipation of a possible acquittal of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who ultimately was convicted of killing George Floyd.

If things dont go a certain way in politically charged trials like that, despite evidence leading a deliberate jury to the opposite conclusion, well, that might very well mean more rioting, looting, arson, and violence.

Potential jurors in the Rittenhouse trial received the message loud and clear that this isnt just a murder trial. This is about the broader question of whether some types of political violence are acceptable, even necessary.

Rittenhouse is charged with the murder of two men and the attempted murder of a third. All relevant parties are white (sadly robbing the media of a beloved racially charged narrative) and it isnt disputed that each of them had been chasing the teen and attempting to apprehend his weapon. All of it was in the context of several nights of destructive rioting in Kenosha, which resulted in a total of $50 million in damages to the city.

The mayhem was sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man who was wanted for violating a restraining order stemming from claims he had sexually assaulted a woman. Blake is on video resisting his arrest and defying police orders by moving to enter his vehicle as they tried to apprehend him.

The city went up in flames and the national media to this day characterize the chaos as a Black Lives Matter march because they, along with leaders in the Democratic Party, believe all of it was justified.

Rittenhouse may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but thats not a crime and its not what hes on trial for. Hes on trial for shooting men who pursued him and made moves to grave his gun, something that is seen on video, testified by at least one witness, and written out in the states own complaint against Rittenhouse.

A jury will inevitably render its verdict, but contrary to what the judge says, theres no way around it this is a political trial and that should scare the jurors.

Visit link:

Jurors In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Are Scared, And They Have Reason To Be - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Jurors In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Are Scared, And They Have Reason To Be – The Federalist

Will Leftists’ Rampant Wokeness Be Their Downfall? – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Libby Emmons, editor-in-chief of The Post Millennial, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss how the rampant wokeness promoted by unchecked leftism could be progressives downfall.

The progressive left has achieved their goal. They are in charge of the universities, they are in charge of the art museums and the art institutions, theyre in charge of the funding and granting organizations, theyre in charge of the federal government, theyre in charge of lots of state governments and city governments of our biggest and most influential cities, theyre in charge of the entertainment infrastructure and the social media infrastructure, they own all of this and they complain to us that we are oppressing them while we are being censored [and] we are being targeted, Emmons said.

Jashinsky agreed that leftists have taken over institutions and seem to hold lots of power but said their inclination to embrace anti-human ideas could contribute to their demise.

Maybe were racing against the clock to the point where, you know, they either destroy America or its taken back, but in the long term, unchecked leftism the logical conclusion of their ideas is anti-human, and humans are not just going to be acclimated to anti-human behavior, Jashinsky said.

Emmons later concluded that its important for people to recognize that there is no moral good in slander, defamation, and lies in order to silence people that you disagree with.

Go here to see the original:

Will Leftists' Rampant Wokeness Be Their Downfall? - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Will Leftists’ Rampant Wokeness Be Their Downfall? – The Federalist

The Conservatives Suing Biden Over His ‘Unconstitutional’ Vax Coercion – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

Updated Nov. 4, 2021.

At least 19 states have already begun to legally pursue action against the Biden administration for forcing medical coercion on federal contractors but following the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations new emergency temporary standard demanding employers with 100 or more workers mandate the jab, others are looking to sue too. OSHAs explicit threat that the rule could eventually extend to smaller businesses in the near future has also pushed politicians, attorneys, and business owners to take legal action.

Here are the conservatives who are suing Biden and his administration for forcing the COVID-19 jab on workers.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt was one of the first Republicans to initiate a lawsuit against the Biden administrations new COVID shot mandate and testing rules.

Ive been in discussions with businesses in Missouri, including a trailer manufacturing company in mid-Missouri, who say that this vaccine mandate will crush their business, Schmitt said in a statement. We will be on file first thing [Friday] morning to halt this illegal, unconstitutional attempt by the Biden administration and the federal government to impose their will on thousands of Missouri businesses and millions of Missourians.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took to Twitter on Thursday to declare his opposition to the newest illegal, unconditional regulation from the Biden administration and announce a lawsuit against the president and his team.

Biden just announced his plan to wield OSHA to mandate vaccines on private businesses. And Im announcing my plan to sue him once this illegal, unconstitutional regulation hits the Federal Register, the TXAG account announced. Here comes another winning #Texas v. Biden law suit!

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen announced on Thursday that he would sue the Biden administration over the new OSHA rule because Forcing these injections on Montanans at the threat of losing their jobs infringes on the rights of our state, individuals, and businesses.

If a president can unilaterally force people to submit to a medical procedure they dont want, then theres seemingly no limit to the federal governments control over our lives, the Republican said in a statement. President Bidens illegal mandate is an egregious overreach and sets the country down a dangerous path. Weve been preparing for this. Ill be filing a lawsuit tomorrow to stop this lawless order in its tracks.

Attorneys General in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee all banded together on Thursday to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky following OSHAs release of its new vaccine rule proposal.

The Constitution lays out critical rules by which the executive branch must operate. Congress and the states have their own powers, which the administration cant just take over because it wants to, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also signaled his states intent to pursue the federal government for trying to force Floridians to get the jab.

The rule is going down, DeSantis said.

Noem took to Twitter on Thursday to announce today, we are joining a lawsuit against the Biden Administrations unconstitutional vaccine mandates.

@JoeBiden, see you in court, she added.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb directed his administration to pursue legal action against the Biden administration on Thursday to combat the governments overreach. Attorney General Todd Rokita has repeatedly pledged for months that he would sue the federal government as soon as the mandates manifested.

This gross example of federal bureaucratic overreach has nothing to do with whether its a good idea to get vaccinated, Rokita said in September. But it has everything to do with the Biden administrations total disrespect for individual liberties and the prerogative of states to govern their own affairs.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds promised immediate legal action against the new OSHA rule in a press release on Thursday.

President Biden is taking dangerous and unprecedented steps to insert the federal government even further into our lives while dismissing the ability of Iowans and Americans to make health care decisions for themselves, she said.Bidens plan pits Americans against Americans, while forcing them to choose between making a living or standing up for their personal beliefs. Bidens actions will only worsen the existing workforce shortages and supply chain issues that hinder our economic recovery.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich on Thursday announced plans to file a new lawsuit against the Biden administration on Friday morning, following up an initial lawsuit he filed when Biden first signaled the requirements in September.

When faceless government bureaucrats dictate what you must inject into your body, thats the furthest thing in the world from a safe workplace. The government doesnt get to be your nanny, and its certainly not your doctor, Brnovich said in a press release.

The Job Creators Network along with businesses such as the Lawrence Transportation Company, Guy Chemical Company, The Rabine Group, and the Independent Bakers Association filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Biden administration for its clearly illegal shot coercion.

The Biden Administrations vaccine mandate is clearly illegal and will have a devastating impact on our small business community and our entire economy. JCN is suing the Administration on the grounds that OSHA does not have the authority to impose such a mandate. Even if OSHA did have the power, there is neither the grave danger nor necessity to issue such a sweeping regulation, JCN President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz said in a statement.

The JCN first announced its plans to push back on the Biden administration after the president released a press release stating his desire for the new rule in September.

President Bidens vaccine mandate on small businesses is unconstitutional and a dramatic overreach of federal authority, Ortiz said at the time. To hold the Biden Administration accountable and stand up for small businesses, Job Creators Network plans to file a lawsuit to block the implementation of this order.

Conservative publication The Daily Wire, backed by the Dhillon Law Group, Inc. and Alliance Defending Freedom, alsoannouncedit would sue the federal government over the proposed rule.

The Daily Wire will not comply with President Bidens tyrannical vaccine mandate, and we are suing the Biden Administration to put a stop to their gross overreach, said Daily Wire Co-Founder and Co-CEO Jeremy Boreing. President Biden, the federal government, social media, and the establishment media have conspired to rob Americans of their freedoms in the name of public health. They have broken faith with the American people through conflicting messaging, false information, and by suppressing data and perspectives with which they disagree.

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

Original post:

The Conservatives Suing Biden Over His 'Unconstitutional' Vax Coercion - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on The Conservatives Suing Biden Over His ‘Unconstitutional’ Vax Coercion – The Federalist

Democrats Need Systemic Racism To Exist So Much, They Fake It – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

The only way Democrats remain competitive is if Americans remain convinced that systemic racism is real and dangerous.

On Friday, five people disguised in baseball caps, tan pants, white shirts, and black shades stood with tiki torches in front of Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkins bus at a Charlottesville campaign stop as a claimed showing of white supremacist support.

Were all in for Glenn, the group reportedly chanted as they invoked memories of the 2017 Unite the Right rally where a clash between white supremacists and counter-protesters turned deadly.

Democrats were quick to exploit the demonstration as an illustration that their opponents political base was steeped in white supremacy.

The Unite the Right rally was one of the darkest days in the Commonwealths history, wrote Christina Freundlich, the spokeswoman for Democrat candidate and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, on Twitter. This is who Glenn Youngkins supporters are.

Except the demonstration was orchestrated by Democrats.

After Republicans and the entire internet immediately mocked the supposed expression of white supremacist excitement for Youngkin as a likely hoax, suspicions that it was fake were confirmed. Online sleuths called out several of the protesters as Democrat operatives, who quickly made their online profiles private.

The grifter-run operation at the Lincoln Project, built on seducing blue-dollar donors to cloak Democrat attacks as Republican, later claimed (without proof) that it was behind the spectacle.

Todays demonstration was our way of reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, [and] the Republican Partys embrace of those values, the group wrote in a statement, despite Democrats apparently having been the ones who had a black man dress up as a white supremacist.

The antics to prop up a candidate down nearly two points in the RealClear aggregate of polls in a state President Joe Biden carried by 10 points a year ago not only mark another exercise of false-flag racism (and in the process, reverse racism), but signal a desperate cling to the narrative of systemic racism to energize the leftist base and intimidate voters.

Never mind it was Virginias current Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam who dressed up either in blackface or as a Ku Klux Klansman. And never mind it was President Joe Biden who actual neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who organized the 2017 Charlottesville rally, endorsed.

After more than a century as the party of slavery and segregation, Democrats have come to embrace a new form of systemic racism in their race-baiting politics and widespread adoption of critical race theory.

Since dismantling the current state of racism has become such a fundamental pillar to the Democrat Party, conceding to reality on the issue would forfeit a lucrative political tool. Thats led the party to aggressively assert that systemic racism against non-white people is endemic, even present within liberal enclaves where Democrat rule is purportedly synonymous with liberation. Thats because, when systemic racism ceases to exist, so does the central mission of the Democrat Party and its favorite attack against Republicans.

The nations obsessive focus on race is a product of Democrat engineering, a party advertising solutions such as reparations and affirmative action branded as social justice with consequences far more detrimental than color blindness. With a lens solely fixated on race, an entire generation is now primed to seek out episodes of racism even where there are none. In a world where cereal boxes, Santa Claus, and even Jesus Christ are racist, what isnt? When everything is racist, nothing will stop being racist. Under this ideology, the very denial of racism is also deemed racist.

Race relations, meanwhile, have rapidly deteriorated under this leftist narrative thats now gripped legacy institutions from Hollywood to Wall Street. According to Gallup, just 43 percent of white adults and 33 percent of black adults said relations were very or somewhat good, a new record low for each group since Gallup began polling on the question in 2001.

The fake incident apparently orchestrated by the Lincoln Project to indict Youngkin as the candidate of white supremacy reflects Democrats need for systemic racism to persist. Republicans success in making a blue state competitive on a platform that emphasized the absurdity of Democrats racist efforts in schools began to prove it doesnt.

Out of desperation, then, Democrats have started to fake abhorrent photo-ops to create the preferred narrative they claim to be warriors in dismantling.

See the rest here:

Democrats Need Systemic Racism To Exist So Much, They Fake It - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Democrats Need Systemic Racism To Exist So Much, They Fake It – The Federalist

If China Controls Taiwan’s Chips It Will Control The World – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

If Americans think the shortage of cars due to chip supply issues is bad, then consider what it would mean if the U.S. military were deprived of the advanced chips required for its arsenal of war equipment. Its a real possibility as the worlds largest and most advanced semiconductor manufacturers sit precariously, approximately 100 miles off the coast of communist China on the island of Taiwan.

In total, Taiwanese companies supply 63 percent of global semiconductors, compared with 12 percent by U.S. manufacturers. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) alone provides over half the worlds made-to-order chips, and an estimated 90 percent of advanced processors.

Chinas leader Xi Xinping knows of the technological power that lies just within reach. After pumping billions into Chinas chip fabrication efforts, the country is still trailing years behind TSMC. There is no substitute for simply taking Taiwans established world-class capabilities, which cannot be readily replicated. In one swift movement, the Chinese Communist Party could both supply itself and deny distribution to whomever it chooses.

If there were any doubts about Chinas intentions for Taiwan, the countrys communist leaders are quickly erasing them for all to see. Recently, its military held assault drills on the beach closest to the free soil of the democratic republic that it so desperately wants to own and control. A few months earlier, it had already set an annual record for flights around Taiwan nearly 400 aircraft.

In one day, October 18, Taiwans Ministry of Defense reported 56 Chinese fighter jets within its Air Defense Identification Zone, causing air defense missile systems to be activated. As if underscoring its point, Chinas intrusions came one day after the United States condemned its military activity near Taiwan. Xi has repeatedly stated his intent to unify China.

Asked recently if he thinks China will invade Taiwan, Gen. Michael Flynn responded, I believe right now that this is the highest level of threat against Taiwan that I have ever seen yes, I believe the Chinese are preparing the battlefield to basically take over Taiwan.

Commenting further regarding Chinas view of an apathetic and weak White House in the aftermath of the retreat from Afghanistan, he said, I dont think China is going to allow themselves to go another couple of years and potentially lose the advantage that they have with the Biden administration right now. The outcome is now inevitable. Like Hong Kong, he believes Taiwan will be subsumed by China.

We should at least know the consequences of such an action.

In the wars of the last century, oil was the essential commodity of armies. Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was largely sparked by Americas embargo of its imported supply. After war was declared, Japan immediately pivoted to seek and conquer supplies within its region to fuel its forces. Allied bombardments in Europe were largely focused on denying the Nazi machine of the oil that turned its gears.

Today, if you control access to microchips then you can control the world cars, iPhones, computers, cameras, and the machines of war. Every aircraft, warship, submarine, and many ground-based weapons require them, as do missiles.

It was reported in April that the secretive China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center was actively developing hypersonic vehicle technology. While the Biden administration was busy figuring out how to retreat from Afghanistan, those efforts continued unabated.

They culminated with the surprise launch of a nuclear-capable hypersonic test missile in August. It circled the globe at a more difficult to defend low-altitude orbit before missing its target by a mere few dozen miles. It shook the world, and it should shake politicians into the realization that it was only accomplished with American software and chips made in Taiwan.

Even as the United States is still regarded as a leader in chip design, it long ago outsourced most fabrication to more cost-efficient locales in the Far East. Realizing this strategic weakness, Congress approved $52 billion in June for domestic semiconductor manufacturing via the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, but it may be too little, too late.

As members of Congress crow to voters that theyve done something, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Chairman Mark Liu notes that his company is investing $100 billion in new capacity, and its not going to be enough. Investments from partner companies such as Apple, Nvidia, and others will amplify that number to a budget that is 100 times what you will see on their financials, according to semiconductor industry expert Daniel Nenni.

Contrary to popular belief on Capitol Hill, every problem cannot be solved with more money particularly one that requires replicating the capabilities of fabricators who have invested decades of time and effort toward learning how to create a transistor that is 1/20,000 the width of a human hair, using a process that involves more than 1,500 steps. Today, only TSMC and South Koreas Samsung Electronics can produce the most advanced 5-nanometer chips.

TSMC already has its eyes on a new 3-nanometer chip that will be 15 percent faster. According to Nenni, it will be impossible for any company or country to catch up to this huge ecosystem thats moving forward like a freight train.

Even if available for procurement, chips from overseas still present an inherent security risk. During the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon found that components were changing hands as much as 15 times before being delivered for installation, with many countries involved, including Taiwan and China. Each step in the process represented an access point for foes to compromise or study the technology involved.

To counter this threat, a Trusted Foundry Program was created in 2004 by the Department of Defense to control the militarys supply chain, but today it is unable to satisfy a need for the most advanced chips. There are no other options on American soil, and even billions in new investment wont change that any time soon.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger emphasizes the companys big new $20 billion investment in fabrication facilities in Arizona, but acknowledges it will take years to catch up. The company that largely birthed Silicon Valley today produces chips that are 30 percent slower than TSMCs.

Any restriction of access to Taiwanese chip fabricators would represent not only a loss of processing speed but of sheer volume of product required to keep all things electronic running. Two-thirds of the worlds semiconductors cannot be removed from the market without a calamitous impact on both military and civilian consumers.

Magnify the chip shortage in the auto market across all sectors, and its not hard to envision the degree of control China could hold. These chips control not just physical products but also the downstream systems that rely on them energy, transportation, communications, manufacturing, and, yes, national defense.

What is the White Houses position on Taiwan? When Chinas hypersonic missile launch came up at the recent CNN town hall, President Biden was asked, So, are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwans defense if China attacked? Yes yes, we have a commitment to do that, replied Biden. That answer lasted less than 24 hours before the White House backpedaled in the wake of a fiery response from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Clarifying that the president who said otherwise was not announcing any change in our policy, a spokesperson reinforced U.S. commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, a Carter-era treaty that eliminated the United States commitment to defend Taiwan. Instead, we will continue to support Taiwans self-defense meaning, leaving a small island nation with an estimated 165,000 active military personnel to stand its ground versus a 2.2 million-strong Chinese army just across the Strait.

As the confrontation builds, Taiwans President Tsai Ing-wen warns of catastrophic consequences if the island were to fall to China: It would signal that in todays global contest of values, authoritarianism has the upper hand over democracy. True and it would tangibly and irrevocably alter the balance of power amongst the worlds superpowers.

Bob Anderson is a partner and CFO of a hotel development company and a former aerospace engineer who worked on the International Space Station and interned in Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) at the Pentagon. He is also a licensed commercial pilot.

Read this article:

If China Controls Taiwan's Chips It Will Control The World - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on If China Controls Taiwan’s Chips It Will Control The World – The Federalist

Wisconsin Investigation Uncovers Potential Tip Of A Voting Fraud Iceberg – The Federalist

Posted: at 9:53 pm

Last Thursday, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriffs office held an hour-long press conference detailing the results of an investigation into a complaint the office received of potential violations of state election law. While leftist media ignored the story, the investigation revealed both blatant violations of state law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans votes.

The methodical presentation by the Racine County Sheriffs Office provided the context, as well as additional texture, to one discrete aspect of the irregularities that took place in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. The press briefing highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commissions illegal directive to municipalities not to use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities, and instead to transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.

Those well-versed in the many violations of election law that occurred in the last election have long known of the WECs override of the legislatively mandated use of special voting deputies. But Thursdays presentation provided an accessible summary of the situation that (should have) resonated beyond political lines and put a figurative face to the fraud enabled by the states election officials own apparent fraud.

Sgt. Michael Luell, who led the investigation and presented his findings during the briefing, also has a law degree and has served as a prosecutor. This unique combination allowed him to simplify the situation, which he did by first highlighting key portions of Wisconsin code in a crisp PowerPoint presentation.

Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the exclusive means of absentee voting in residential care facilities, the presentation noted. That statute requires the local municipality to dispatch two special voting deputies, or SVDs, to a facility. The SVDs must then personally deliver a ballot to residents of the facility and must witness the voting process. The statute further provides that only a relative or an SVD may assist the voter and then, following the vote, must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the clerk.

In addition to laying out Section 6.875s mandates for voting in residential care facilities, Luell provided quotes and video clips establishing that the WEC commissioners knew their directive to eliminate SVDs violated state law.

Further, in an attempt to justify their decision to violate state law, WEC commissioners focused on the dangers of COVID to the senior community, Luell stressed that in response to the WECs request that the governor suspend the portions of Wisconsin election law related to SVDs, the governors office informed the WEC that the governor lacked that power.

Moreover, the WEC continued to claim to override the SVD provisions even after the governors lockdown orderswhich did not ban SVDs from nursing homes in any eventexpired in September. Then, to illustrate the absurdity of the WECs position, Luell highlighted for the public the visitors allowed into senior facilities. His report detailed facility access allowed from April to November in 2020 for the following:

Luell also excerpted details from a document the WEC apparently distributed to nursing homes throughout the state. That document, entitled Absentee Voting at Care Facilities in 2020, informed care facility administrator[s] and staff member[s] that they could, among other things, assist residents in filling out their ballots or certification envelops, in express violation of Section 6.875.

Throughout the press conference, Luell made election law minutia understandable with the personal element, beginning with the fact that he launched his investigation based on a complaint his office received from Judy. As Luell explained, Judy discovered her mother had purportedly voted by absentee ballot in the November 3, 2020 election, even though Shirley had died on October 9, 2020.

Judy filed an affidavit with the WEC, stating she believed the residential care facility where her mother had resided, the Ridgewood Care Facility, took advantage of her mothers diminished mental capacity and filled out ballot(s) in her name. WEC refused to investigate and forwarded the complaint to the Racine County Prosecutors Office, which forwarded it to the sheriffs office for investigation.

As part of the investigation, Luell obtained a list of all Ridgewood Care residents who voted in the 2020 election: 42 in all. After subpoenaing the named contacts for each voter from the nursing homes file, Luell attempted to contact the next-of-kin to inquire if they had any concerns about whether their family member had actually voted.

In addition to Judy, the children of six other residents of Ridgewood Care Facility expressed concerns about a ballot cast in their parents names. The patients children detailed to the sheriffs office their parents lack of mental capacity and other facts indicating the votes did not represent the freewill of their parents, such as the difficulty in convincing one mother to sign any documents and one fathers statement that if he couldnt vote in person, he did not want to vote. Also, none of those other six residents had voted in the 2016 presidential election, or in any election since 2012.

Worse still was the case of SL, whom a court had declared legally incompetent. SLs legal guardian told Luell she believed SLs right to vote had been taken away. Records likewise showed SL had not voted since 2012.

In addition to these interviews, Luell interviewed the Mount Pleasant Village Clerk, who told him the rate of new people registering to vote and the number of people voting at the Ridgewood Care Center was unusually high in the November 20202 election. According to Luells report, the clerk stated that for most previous elections, including presidential elections, the number of people voting would total about ten, and the number of new requests for absentee ballots would be zero to two people.

The clerk further noted that the director of Ridgewood Care Center would call her and tell her that she had 80 people who were newly requesting absentee ballots, and that in 2020, 36 new requests for absentee ballots were received and 43 residents voted in the November 2020 election.

Also questioned was the director of Ridgewood Care Center and several employees, including one aide who spoke with the sergeant a second time after leaving her job at Ridgewood Care Center. Luells report from this follow-up interview included a note that the former employee claimed that she told Director [REDACTED] that she lied to the police and she should not have done that.

These interviews also revealed staffers improperly completed a portion of the absentee ballots, mishandled ballots, and discussed the elections and candidates with the residents beyond merely reading them the ballots or turning on NBC News to spark an interest in voting.

Before taking questions, Luell returned to the Wisconsin Election Code and Section 12.13, entitled Election Fraud. Here, he noted at Section 12.13(2)(b)(7) expressly provides that it is a crime if, in the course of the persons official duties or on account of the persons official position, the official intentionally violates or intentionally causes any other person to violate any provision of the election code, for which no other penalty is expressly prescribed.

He then noted several other relevant criminal provisions, including the crime of receiving a ballot from, or giving a ballot to, a person other than the election officer in charge, or receiving a complete ballot from a voter unless qualified to do so.

During the Q&A period that followed, the Racine County Sheriffs Office stressed that it does not make prosecutorial decisions, and had turned the results of the investigation over to the prosecutors office. The office also called for the Wisconsin attorney general to launch its own investigation.

Sheriff Christopher Schmaling also noted that Racine County is just one of 72 counties, and Ridgewood is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin, he continued, noting we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state.

Unfortunately, we would also be foolish to think that the corporate media will care about election integrity. Absent a very public light being shined on the problem, it will continue unabated, leading to further distrust in our electoral process and the press.

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.

See the original post here:

Wisconsin Investigation Uncovers Potential Tip Of A Voting Fraud Iceberg - The Federalist

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on Wisconsin Investigation Uncovers Potential Tip Of A Voting Fraud Iceberg – The Federalist

The ongoing political struggle continues a debate first started in 1781: Who will make decisions for America? The South Dakota Standard – The South…

Posted: at 9:53 pm

The federal and state governmental response to Covid-19 has accentuated an American debate dating back to 1781 which government has the power to do what?

American history is essentially the story of this enduring power struggle. Over time, the practical balance of power (as illustrated in the above image from study.com) between states and the federal government (federalism) changed as our society evolved. To date, our republic has experienced five distinct epochs of federalism.

Unfortunately, the hallmark of our current epoch, Ad Hoc Federalism, is inconsistency, which, as current events repeatedly demonstrate, produces dysfunction rather than stable, effective government. A major power shift sufficient to trigger a new epoch is necessary to save the republic from what appears increasingly likely to be a death spiral for American democracy.

In 1984, (the book not the year), George Orwell observed that Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. In that spirit, it is worth exploring how and why we have a dysfunctional government today.

After declaring independence in 1776, the United States operated as an informal coalition of allied sovereign states until adopting the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in 1781. The primary goal of the Articles was preservation of each states sovereign independence with only narrow grants of state authority to a weak central government. The myriad dysfunctions of this system resulted in rapid replacement of the Articles with our current Constitution in 1788.

Of course, the Constitution did not receive universal support. The fight over adoption was based upon principles that are once again major issues of concern. Advocating for the Constitution were the Federalists, who favored a strong central government with independent power and the ability to compel compliance by the states. In opposition were the Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong central government as a threat to individual liberties and state sovereignty due to an increased potential for tyranny.

In the 1790s, both groups formed political parties with Anti-Federalists becoming Democratic-Republicans (Democrats) while Federalists kept the same moniker.

In contrast to the confederacy it replaced, the federal government detailed in our Constitution is empowered directly by the people through application of democracy consent of the governed just like state governments. As we learned in high school, the federal government has enumerated powers based upon explicit grants of authority and implied powers from undefined general grants of authority that displace state powers. There are also concurrent powers shared between states and the federal government.

This governmental structure of shared responsibilities and authority is relatively unique in the world as 85% of world nations have a system in which all power resides with the central government.

Our multi-tiered government invites disputes over power. In the past, such clashes were based upon a consistent ideological interpretation over time. Until 1933, the Dual Federalism Epoch was premised upon the federal and state governments with distinct jurisdictions and responsibilities. Each government exercised its authorities without interference from the other.

In the early 1800s, federal funds accounted for less than 1% of state budget revenue. Of course, Dual Federalism emboldened some states to try unilaterally nullifying federal law, resulting in the Civil War.

By 1933, the Great Depression demonstrated that a rigid separation between state and federal jurisdictions was a practical impossibility given the nature and scope of societal problems. In response, the epoch of Cooperative Federalism, in which both levels of government work together to maximize effectiveness, was born. This paradigm shift is embodied in Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal programs, where the federal government took the lead in identifying problems, establishing a programmatic framework to address them, and providing funding, but turned over implementation and administration responsibilities to state and local governments. In the 1930s, federal funds increased to roughly 20% of state budget revenue.

By 1964, power shifted further to the federal government when it took over policymaking for all Americans by effectively compelling state and local governments to implement specified policies. This epoch of Centralized Federalism used federal funds (grants-in-aid) with detailed conditions that required states to support specific programs. Democratic President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society program exemplified this standardized approach to address poverty and racial injustice with spending on education, medical care, and urban renewal.

In 1980, Republican President Reagan implemented the New Federalism epoch, seeking to return power to states while reducing federal funding. Non-discretionary grants-in-aid were largely replaced with federal block grants to maximize state and local government discretion for greater customization. This approach, a reaction to the power shift begun during the New Deal, reflects the original Anti-Federalist ideal that government functions best at a level as close to the voters as possible.

The tug-of-war culminated in our current dysfunctional epoch of Ad Hoc Federalism that began at the start of this century. Politicians now demonstrate frustrating inconsistency advocating for either state or federal power in a self-serving manner contingent upon the partisan nature of the subject and whether the entity/official acting is from the same political party. This approach poses a unique risk to effective state governments because federal funds now account for 30% to 40% of most states budget revenue (37% for South Dakota.)

States also depend upon federal funds and resources in more than just the regular budget process. Threatened or actual withholding or delayed distribution of money/resources based upon partisan disfavor can have a serious adverse impact. For example, the Trump administration issued numerous threats to withhold federal disaster aid and other types of federal support to state and

local governments because they had Democratic leadership. Such actions illustrate the dangers of Ad Hoc Federalism, which is poised to get worse in the future.

Why so much history? Because when you are lost and in trouble, as American democracy currently is, finding your way to a better place requires three critical pieces of information where you came from, where you are now, and where you want to go.

Winston Churchill famously wrote Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In determining where the U.S. should go, a better lesson is, Attempts to repeat history are doomed to fail, learn from it.

The epoch of Dual Federalism, when power struggles were largely resolved in favor of states, lasted nearly 150 years. In contrast, over the past 90 years, federal power has remained preeminent across four different epochs. The historical context of each epoch suggests why attempts to repeat similar outcomes today are unlikely to succeed.

The principal reason for enduring federal preeminence is the 1913 ratification of the 16th Amendment authorizing a federal income tax. With the federal government drawing taxes directly from people and businesses, states are deprived of the foremost source of budget revenue. When the Great Depression began in 1929, the federal government was the only entity with the financial capacity to mount an organized, comprehensive response. It remains that way today.

The driving force of the U.S. economy when the income tax was implemented, however, is not the same as today. In the early 20th century, the wealthiest Americans were oil baron John D. Rockefeller and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Industry had recently displaced agriculture as the primary method of making money.

Mass communication, mass entertainment, mass education and mass consumption based upon the standardized model of mass production became the norm. The 1920 census revealed such a huge population (power) shift from agricultural to industrialized areas that Congress refused to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives.

A century later, the wealthiest Americans are technology titans Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. The information economy (knowledge, information, and services) has displaced industry as the chief method of making money. In the process, it transformed the rest of American society by enabling a level of customization not previously possible.

In 1909, Henry Ford said a Model T was available in any color as long as its black. In 2021, an F-150 pickup has more than four million potential build configurations. Despite the possibility of getting exactly what you want in other areas of the economy, the federal government continues to function based upon the standardized model of 20th century industry.

Cooperative Federalism was empowered by President Roosevelts overwhelming mandate for change from winning 413 of 531 electoral college votes in 1932 and 523 of 531 in 1936. In 1964, President Johnsons win with 486 of 538 votes sustained his efforts with Centralized Federalism.

Similarly, President Reagans ability to implement New Federalism was facilitated by winning 489 of 538 votes in 1980 and 525 of 538 in 1984. In contrast, Ad Hoc Federalism is not the result of a presidential agenda. Establishing a new epoch requires a bold leader with an overwhelming popular mandate for change.

Since 1988, no president has won more than 365 electoral college votes. Ad Hoc Federalism developed in conjunction with the telecommunications and information technology boom (information economy) of the late 1990s. Infotainment stars from talk radio, cable television, and the internet shaped voter expectations requiring career politicians to follow along.

Our current epoch is thus guided by clickbait headlines and ratings as President Trump recognized.

Recall that the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government due to the increased risk of tyranny (use of official powers to advance personal interests unrestrained by the rule of law). With Ad Hoc Federalism, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. Recent events have shown that devolving substantial federal power to the states is necessary to minimize the existential risk to our democratic republic.

Presidents Biden and Obama were both labelled tyrants by Republicans. Obama for imposing the Affordable Care Act and issuing executive orders on immigration, Biden for imposing vaccine mandates on certain types of employees.

Similarly, Democrats objected to President Trumps blanket refusal to cooperate with congressional oversight efforts. He was also impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election efforts and again for orchestrating violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after continuously deriding the legitimacy of an election without producing any credible evidence of alleged fraud.

So, this is where we are now. The federal government operates as a monolith in the 20th century industrial model. The 21st century information economy created and fosters the malign impact of Ad Hoc Federalism.

The risk of a tyrant destroying our democratic republic is no longer hypothetical. Polls indicate a substantial majority of Americans from across the political spectrum believe our democracy is in jeopardy. The question then is whether to blindly defend the worsening status quo hoping for a return to a lost past or put our faith in each other by charting a new path for the future.

As always, democracy offers the best way, the only way, to choose where we want to go.

Brian Bengs is an enlisted U.S. Navy veteran and retired U.S. Air Force officer. He has lived and worked all over the U.S. and the world but now calls Aberdeen home. He previously taught an array of law and policy topics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, NATO School Oberammergau, and Northern State University.

Read more:

The ongoing political struggle continues a debate first started in 1781: Who will make decisions for America? The South Dakota Standard - The South...

Posted in Federalist | Comments Off on The ongoing political struggle continues a debate first started in 1781: Who will make decisions for America? The South Dakota Standard – The South…

Page 75«..1020..74757677..8090..»