Category Archives: Federalist

In stark contrast to the Center for Disease Controls recommendations that all people over the age of two wear a mask indoors to mitigate transmission of SARS-COV-2, the sections of its website dedicated to seasonal influenza do not recommend wearing masks to prevent it from spreading.

Since the battle over mask mandates is most intense with regard to schools, its crucial to point out the pediatric mortality rate derived from the CDCs estimate of flu mortality is comparable to its estimate of COVID-19 mortality among children. The CDC attributes 542 deaths to COVID among those aged 0-17 total over the past 18 months, while estimating influenza deaths for the six-month 2019-2020 season at 486, as of this writing. Assuming these numbers are fairly accurate, this means the risk of flu-related death for children and teens is greater than for COVID.

While CDC Web pages dedicated to COVID-19 often include a banner photo of someone in a mask, this isnt common in the influenza section of the website. Masks also seem nowhere to be found among CDC recommendations on flu prevention for those who arent health workers. Instead, to help slow the spread of germs that cause respiratory (nose, throat, and lungs) illnesses, like flu, they suggest getting the flu vaccine, staying away from people who are sick, covering coughs and sneezes, and frequent handwashing.

Compare that to its guidance, updated in August, for COVID-19 mitigation in K-12 schools at the very top of the page: CDC recommends universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Universal masking is also the third bullet point under key takeaways.

One might argue the flu vaccines are more effective than the COVID vaccines and therefore masks arent needed. But the CDC notes that a meta-analysis that included data from randomized controlled trials, the most robust form of medical research, found flu vaccines to be in the range of 51-67 percent effective at preventing flu infection. One RCT even found it to be as low as 16 percent in a season of low influenza infection rates. Influenza transmission cannot be prevented by vaccination because vaccination is only about 60 percent effective at preventing flu illness.

Wouldnt layered prevention strategies of the kind the CDC demands for COVID be called for to address a dangerous pathogen for which vaccines arent highly effective?

If masks are so effective at mitigating respiratory virus transmission, as Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky have told us, why would our public officials not recommend masks for the flu? Influenza is a respiratory virus that spreads similarly to SARS-COV-2. A 2016 study comparing detection of viable influenza virus in 53 subjects with confirmed influenza A infection found 22(42 percent) produced aerosols with viable virus during exhalation.

Another study by researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety developed a two-stagecyclone bioaerosol sampler to separate aerosol particles into different sizes. Researchers discovered that the H1N1 and H3N2 influenza viruses were most often found in the 14 m and less than 1 m size fractions (emphasis added), meaning they were airborne, as particles less than 10 m in diameter can remain airborne for hours and are easily inhaled deeply into the respiratory tract.

In other words, this evidence indicates the flu can be spread just by breathing. Research on aerosols carrying SARS-COV-2 also suggest it also could be spread by breathing. Also, like health experts have been so often quoted as saying regarding COVID, asymptomatic spread is possible (although probably greatly overestimatedthe CDC admitted as much earlier this year in a report of school transmission).

According to the authors of a study of flu infection among health-care workers and patients during 2015/16 and 2016/17 influenza seasons, a significant proportion of individuals shed influenza virus without harboring any symptoms, thereby potentially exposing their vicinity. Roughly 8 percent of flu-positive swabs were collected among patients on days without symptoms, and asymptomatic transmission seemed likely in one cluster of infections. The CDC itself admits, You may be able to spread flu to someone else before you know you are sick.

So if the flu can be transmitted asymptomatically, its more dangerous to kids than COVID, and its vaccine allows for ample breakthrough infections, why dont they recommend masks for the flu?

Perhaps its because masks as a mitigation strategy for the flu had already been studied in controlled trials, and the results didnt reinforce their use. In 2019 the World Health Organization listed its top ten studies on masks and hand hygiene for flu mitigation, and although all had problems such as insufficient sample size, none found strong evidence for masks efficacy (see page 25, Table 7).

If the CDC were to start pushing masks for flu mitigation, the public and corporate media (albeit reluctantly) would have to address the lack of evidence in influenza transmission studies for mask-wearing. People would then start to wonder why, if the evidence of masks for flu is shaky, we should believe masks work for COVID.

Those who claim the science supports masks for COVID prevention should also be demanding masks for flu prevention. After all, if masks save lives, and if we can save even one life, then its worth it, as the proponents of universal masking tell us, then indoor masks every flu season for everyone ages two and over should be not just on the table but promoted emphatically and relentlessly by our public health institutions.

The fact that it isnt should give anyone, particularly parents with schoolchildren enduring strict mask mandates, great pause. Is the CDC the same trustworthy organization people looked to for science-driven, sensible guidance before the pandemic hit? The same one that assures them child deaths from the flu are relatively rare?

Or has it been corrupted by all the money and power that pandemic hysteria allows them to tap into? Is it really following the science, or are health officials selectively applying The Science based on what supports the their own financial interests or the controlling political partys narrative and agenda? Can we really say the CDC isnt politically biased when its director has also declared gun control a public health crisis?

The CDCs differing recommendations for respiratory viruses that can be dangerous and spread similarly suggest masks today are less about public health than about public manipulation. The only question left is how long well put up with it.

Read more:

If Masks 'Work,' Why Doesn't The CDC Recommend Them For The Flu? - The Federalist

The retired U.S. marine who thwarted an attempted robbery by three suspects in a convenience store in Arizona is a hero in more ways than one.

Veteran James Kilcer gained national attention last week after a video of him swiftly disarming an armed burglar in a Chevron gas station went viral on social media.

As the armed suspect walked by Mr. Kilcer while pointing the weapon at the cashier, Kilcer reacted without hesitation, quickly disarming the suspect and taking him to the ground. He was able to immediately gain control of the gun and detain the suspect until Deputies arrived. As a result, no victims were injured and no property loss was sustained, the Yuma County Sherriffs Office wrote in a press release.

Kilcers quick thinking prompted an interview with Fox News about his experience. Anchor Dana Perino wrapped up the segment by offering to buy Kilcer a beer, but the veteran had a different closing comment in mind.

And remember, Epstein didnt kill himself, Kilcer replied, which prompted laughing from Perino.

Very clever, she said.

As a result of Kilcers smooth takedown of the armed suspect, the Yuma, Arizona Sheriffs Office awarded the veteran the YCSO Citizens Valor Award: For extraordinary heroism and exceptional courage while voluntarily coming to the aid of another citizen during an incident involving criminal activity at extreme, life threatening, personal risk in an attempt to save or protect human life.

The YCSO Citizens Valor Award is the highest award for citizens whose actions warrant recognition, the press release noted.

Kilcers ability to think on his feet produced heroic results, but the veteran showed even more courage when he accepted the award from Sheriff Leon Wilmot in a Lets Go Brandon shirt and iconic red Make America Great Again cap.

Kilcer celebrated his award while The American Legion Post 19, Marine Corps League Territorial Detachment 635, the Chevron General Manager, and the Yuma community looked on.

Kilcer will not only go down in history as being one of the calmest people to take down a bad guy with a gun, but hell also be remembered for sticking it to the Biden administration and other elites in one of the most polite yet noticeable ways possible.

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

See the original post here:

Heroic Veteran Who Disarmed Burglar With Bare Hands Publicly Sticks It To Biden - The Federalist

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delayed a vote on the infrastructure bill on Thursday night after the most radical lawmakers in her party threw yet another round of fits about the legislations contents and the related $1.75 trillion spending bill that acts as a free pass for key elements of the leftist agenda.

Despite never promising to deliver on every talking point lodged in each of the legislative packages, President Joe Biden, Pelosi, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the progressive squad have devoted weeks to bickering over these key bills. Their attempts to pass just one piece of legislation that the administration and vulnerable Democrat members could use to boost the publics image of them ahead of the 2022 midterms, however, has failed up to this point.

The president even delayed his European summit trip in hopes of convincing progressives to give him just one legislative victory but ended up pushing Democrat House leaders to bail on a vote.

While progressives appear more open to Bidens begging for a $1.75 trillion reconciliation bill that would win over holdout Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, they plan to hold out on the infrastructure bill until the final Build Back Better plan is passed.

The reality is that while talks around the infrastructure bill lasted months in the Senate, there has only been serious discussion around the specifics of the larger Build Back Better Act in recent weeks, thanks to the Progressive Caucus holding the line and putting both parts of the agenda back on the table, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Pramila Jayapal said in a statement on Thursday. Members of our Caucus will not vote for the infrastructure bill without the Build Back Better Act. We will work immediately to finalize and pass both pieces of legislation through the House together.

Sanders, who touted the reconciliation bill as an opportunity to move the nation even further left, seems less willing to compromise on the legislation packages unless the new round of proposals fills major gaps in his agenda to socialize health care.

At the same time, he did not draw any red lines and praised the plan as the most consequential bill since the 1960s, Politico noted in its Friday morning Playbook.

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

The rest is here:

Biden, Pelosi, Sanders, And Squad Squabble Over Bill They Didn't Promise - The Federalist

Because the national media are still invested in defending the mass violence and race rioting that took place all summer last year, its safe to assume that any coverage they devote to the trial of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse will be gross and misleading.

To wit, theyre already suggesting that Rittenhouses defense is getting an unfair advantage after the presiding judge, Bruce Schroeder, ruled this week that the three men Rittenhouse shot that August night of violent riots in Kenosha, Wis., cannot be referred to during the trial as victims, but that they could be described as looters, rioters, or arsonists.

CNNs Jeffrey Toobin said on Wednesday that the ruling should help Rittenhouses defense a great deal and that characterizing the men as lawbreakers suggests that Rittenhouse was justified in what he was doing because these were bad people that he shot.

Anchor Erica Hill said that same day that she literally cant wrap my head around this and that she was wondering how the heck something like this could happen.

Areva Martin, another one of CNNs legal analysts (though this one didnt expose herself while masturbating on a Zoom call), said the ruling was incomprehensible and that to call the men rioters or looters suggests they deserved what they got.

Im sure it will surprise you that this is an attempt to create yet one more false narrative about the race riots that were cheered on by the media last year in order to tip the election against Donald Trump.

The truth is that Judge Schroeder had said the term victim is loaded because it assumes a degree of guilt by a perpetrator. In this case, Rittenhouses legal team is expected to claim he was defending himself when he fired his weapon at the men, two of whom died. Prosecutors countered that it would likewise be as loaded, if not more loaded to characterize any of the men shot by Rittenhouse as rioters or looters or arsonists.

Schroeder rejected that argument on the grounds that there is actual evidence that the men were any one or all of those things. Prosecutors had, after all, actually admitted that one of the men, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, had lit a dumpster ablaze that night. Schroeder further said that in its statements to the jury, Rittenhouses defense was free to demonize the men, just as prosecutors were free to beatify them. But, he said, referring to them as victims was a question at the core of the trial and something to be determined by the jury.

This isnt a matter of Schroeder giving Rittenhouse a sympathetic leg up. As USA Today noted, the judge has a standard rule prohibitinguse of the term victim until someone is convicted of a crime.

The case isnt going to center on whether anyone deserved to be shot because they were rioting. Its going to be about whether Rittenhouse had reason to fear that his life was in danger. Reading the states own complaint against Rittenhouse, the answer is: Oh my God, yes he did, and is he OK?!

Rittenhouse had driven that night 30 minutes from his home to Kenosha, where mass protests and riots were taking place over the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man who was wanted for violating a restraining order stemming to claims he had sexually assaulted a woman. Rittenhouse brought a rifle with him and set out to, in his words, protect businesses and offer medical aid to anyone injured.

The first shooting took place at a car dealership. According to a witness cited by the states complaint, Rittenhouse was running away and being pursued by Rosenbaum, who was first to engage Rittenhouse. While Rittenhouse was backing up, the witness said that Rosenbaum moved toward the teen with his hands up in an attempt to take his gun. Thats when Rittenhouse fired the gun, striking Rosenbaum multiple times. He was pronounced dead later at a hospital.

Rittenhouse then fled the area, and the complaint says a group of people formed and chased him. Video from the scene shows people yelling Beat him up! and Get him! Get that dude! Someone says, Whatd he do? and another responds, Just shot someone.

The complaint says that as Rittenhouse was running, a man appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm, making contact with the teen, knocking his hat off of his head.

Rittenhouse then fell to the ground and someone can be heard yelling, Get his ass! Video shows several men approaching Rittenhouse. One of them jumps at and over Rittenhouse, who fires his gun. The man retreated. The complaint then identifies 26-year-old Anthony Huber as appearing to try to grab the gun. Rittenhouse shoots him and he stumbles away before collapsing dead to the ground.

The complaint then says that 27-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz, who also was carrying a gun, made his own attempt at grabbing Rittenhouses firearm. Video shows that immediately after Rittenhouse shot Huber, Grosskreutz holds up both of his hands but then lunges at Rittenhouse, who fires his gun, striking Grosskreutz in the arm.

The crowd that had been pursuing Rittenhouse dispersed, and the teen then walked toward police with his hands up and pointing back in the direction from which he had come.

Should Rittenhouse have been there to begin with? Was he looking for trouble? I dont know, and thats not what hes on trial for. But judging from the videos and the states own complaint against him, he certainly had every reason to believe his life was threatened by a mob in hot pursuit.

A jury will get to hear all of what was mentioned above, just not from CNN.

See the rest here:

The Media Are Already Trying To Convict Kyle Rittenhouse And Taint His Trial - The Federalist

I understand the argument that Hillary Clinton has suffered enough for her husbands sins. (Of course, shes hardly suffered enough for her own.) But shes a beneficiary of the power and money Bill Clinton enjoys in the wake of his presidency. Shes his wife and a window into his personal life. So why are any serious news outlets interviewing her without asking about Jeffrey Epstein? If the press wants to treat allegations against Epstein seriously, why should Clinton get a pass when shes trying to sell books?

The former secretary of state is on a book tour, hawking her new novel, making stops at The View and The Atlantic to sell copies and complain about conservatives. Yet, in the years since her failed presidential bid, the public learned a great deal about Bill Clintons deeply suspicious ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex criminal with a network of powerful allies. She should hardly be on the hook for all of Bills personal failings but these allegations are credible and enormous.

In May 2020, Netflix dropped Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, a docuseries bizarrely executive produced in part by James Patterson, Epsteins former neighbor and Bill Clintons repeated co-author. (Their latest book dropped this summer.) That documentary features two witnesses who say, despite the Clintons denials, that Bill visited Little Saint James, Epsteins private island that was literally nicknamed Orgy Island. Steve Scully worked on the island for six years, from 1999 to 2005. I saw Bill Clinton sitting with Jeffrey on the living room porch, he says in the show.

Virginia Giuffre, one of Epsteins most vocal accusers, also told documentarians, I remember having a dinner with Clinton. He was there, and I never saw him do anything improper. I wish, you know, he would just come clean about [it].

Giuffre made that claim in court documents as well, telling investigators in 2011 that Epstein said Clinton was on the island because he owe[d] me a favor.

There is also a serious discrepancy between the number of flights Clinton admits to taking on Epsteins plane and the number in reports from flight logs. Fox News reported that Clinton took at least 26 flights on the jet. Flight logs from Gawker show at least a dozen. Clinton admits to only four.

Did the former first lady ask her husband why he was photographed getting a neck rub from Epsteins 22-year-old massage therapist on a post-presidential humanitarian trip to Africa? That massage therapist, whos since accused Epstein of rape, says she saw Clinton partake in no foul play on the trip, during which he traveled on Epsteins plane. Fine. But what does his wife think of the pictures, which were released in 2020? Did she ask him about that? Does she think they suggest Bill had way too casual of a relationship with a convicted abuser?

The media largely treats Giuffres many allegations against Epstein credibly. Outlets have reported on the flight logs. Why, then, should Hillary Clinton be allowed to continue enriching her family and advancing her message without answering difficult questions about her own husbands ties to Epstein? Does the news value of her insipid political commentary really outweigh the value of asking these questions?

Of course, any outlet that asks Clinton about Epstein will be punished by her team. Thats how this works. Thats almost certainly why ABC News quashed Amy Robachs story on Epstein back in 2019, despite the networks denials. Yet Clintons ties to Epstein have made enough headlines, and are plenty serious, that his wife has presumably brought it up and presumably knows something more than the public. Shell, of course, deny wrongdoing. But she should actually have to do that.

ABC News let The View give Clinton a nine-minute tongue bath earlier this month. The networks executives and journalists are normalizing something very abnormal.

Every journalist should make these questions a condition of sitting down with Hillary and Bill Clinton. If the pair wants access to the media, they should have to earn it by answering important questions the media exists to ask.

More:

Why Is The Media Letting Hillary Clinton Sell Her Book Without Getting Epstein Questions? - The Federalist

A pair of left-wing billionaires teamed up to launch a new venture tackling media disinformation on Tuesday.

Called Good Information Inc., the latest enterprise backed by LinkedIn Founder Reid Hoffman and left-wing financier George Soros will fund and scale businesses that cut through echo chambers with fact-based information, according to Axios.

The new group will be led by Tara McGowan, who previously ran the scandal-plagued non-profit ACRONYM which botched the Iowa Democratic caucuses last year. McGowan was married to a senior aide to then-candidate Pete Buttigieg, who, despite emerging from the caucuses with fewer votes than Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders came out on top with the most delegates.

Both Hoffman and McGowan have their own history of amplifying manipulated narratives some might call disinformation.

In December 2018, Hoffman apologized for financing a deception campaign in the 2017 Alabama Senate special election race where fake online accounts were made to appear as Russian bots that operated in support of Republicans. The fake personas fed a news cycle of pro-Republican Kremlin interference to a media susceptible to such storylines.

McGowans ACRONYM on the other hand, is the liberal dark money group behind the Courier Newsroom, a left-wing outlet.

According to OpenSecrets, Courier has faced scrutiny for exploiting the collapse of local journalism to spread hyperlocal partisan propaganda.'

It claims to operate independent from ACRONYM and says ownership is shared with other investors. But a new tax return obtained by OpenSecrets lists ACRONYM as the full owner of Courier as of April 30, 2019, the most recent date on record. An ACRONYM spokesperson told OpenSecrets that Courier has attracted multiple private investors since that time. Websites affiliated with Courtier Newsroom that appear to be free-standing local news outlets are actually part of a coordinated effort with deep ties to Democratic political operatives.

Axios reported Tuesday that Good Information Inc. will acquire Courier.

The information crisis were in is so much bigger than politics, McGowan told Axios. Translation: my grip on the narrative is slipping.

The birth of Good Information Inc. marks a new addition to a growing campaign to instill objectivity in media poisoned by member groups ideological roots, where objectivity is a synonym for reporting with a progressive lens, and disinformation is the marker of a political dissident worthy of censorship.

First they developed the strategy of fact-checking to smear opponents operating outside the Overton Window established by legacy journalists. There are no shortage of erroneous fact-checks to highlight the ill-faith tactic of reporting, from fact-checking slogans on health care in Democrats favor during the 2012 election to fact-checking South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scotts blackness.

Over the prior decade, the fact-checking industry has exploded withmore than 300 fact-checking groups worldwide, 58 in the United States, according to the Duke University Reporters Lab. Some have been coopted by leftist elites at Big Tech empires with control over the digital public square to justify desired actions of censorship, from blockbuster reporting on Hunter Biden amid the 2020 election to studies against the Faucian consensus on COVID-19. Facebook has even censored a fact-check of a fake fact-check to a story that was a real fact-check.

The growth of the fact-checking industry has reflected the lefts desire to capture a monopoly on truth. That pursuit has now escalated to a blitzkrieg to discredit their opponents as champions of fake news with new institutions and demands for heightened censorship.

The introduction of the Hoffman, Soros-funded venture to the cause comes as the Aspen Institutes Commission on Information is expected to unveil a new report on misinformation. The commission is co-chaired by Katie Couric, who deliberately omitted criticism of NFL kneeling protests from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chris Krebs, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security official. In December, Krebs proclaimed the 2020 election the most secure in American history that featured record-number voting in the form of mail-in ballots with new procedures implemented to facilitate such a high turn-out at the last minute.

Also on the commission is Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, who believes the First Amendment is bonkers, and is now co-authoring a report to recommend what government and corporate leaders ought to do to enhance their crusade on political dissidents and serve as noble thought-police.

To compliment efforts from the Aspen Institute and Good Information Inc., which cited funding for the NeverTrump website Bulwark as an example of its bipartisanship, a recent Facebook whistleblower who is also a Democrat activist that helped suppress blockbuster reporting on Hunter Biden, has come forward complaining the tech giant doesnt do enough to suppress conservative content.

The left-wing obsession with fact-checking and censorship serves as nothing more than a relentless campaign to control the facts. Control the facts and control the narrative. Control the narrative, and control the truth.

Go here to see the original:

New Leftist Billionaire Venture Exposes The Fight For Monopoly On Truth - The Federalist

Sofia Steele, a 7-year-old special needs student with Down syndrome who attends Brevard Public Schools (BPS) in Florida, recently came home from school short of breath and with a mask tied to her head and neck with nylon rope. Her mask was saturated with her own saliva.

Theres a special place in hell for the three members of the Brevard County School Board who did this to Sofia Steele There will be hell to pay, Florida state Rep. Randy Fine said Friday.

Sofias father, Dr. Jeffrey Steele, said he was unaware she was being forced to wear a mask at school in the first place. Sofia is a non-verbal special needs student. She has an oversized tongue and sensory issues. Her father believed Sofia was exempt from BPSs mask mandate.

Until the day he found out she wasnt, when Sofia came home from school choking on her mask. Apparently, that was the first day school officials forgot to take off her mask before sending her home.Furious, Sofias father called the school and found out that neither he nor Sofia had a choice on masking.

Reportedly, officials at the school had been bullying Sofia to put on the mask for six weeks, backed by BPSs illegal mask mandate, which has been pushed by lightning-rod school board member Jennifer Jenkins, a Democrat. School officials resorted to tying the mask to Sofias face with rope after she rejected their efforts to affix the mask via the ear loops. Sofias family is pursuing legal action.

Steele said of the danger in which the school placed his daughter, Medically, she could aspirate. She could asphyxiate, and all sorts of medical things could happen because of her breathing, and her enlarged tongue, it could cause seizures.

Steele says he also called Jenkins, who failed to return his call. Jenkins claims she never received his message.

This was during the same time Jenkins was busy making the rounds on national media outlets like MSNBC, portraying herself as a victim. She alleged she had been terrorized by parents of students in BPS, who disagreed with her over issues such as the mask mandate.

To be sure, there is no place for terrorizing or trampling anyones rights, including Jenkinss. Hopefully, the truth will come out regarding her allegations, and justice will prevail.

Sofias story came to light last week when Steele stood alongside Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Fine, and other Florida officials during a Brevard press conference regarding Sofia and other school-related issues, including how Florida is fighting back against the Biden administrations targeting of parents with the full force of the federal government as domestic terrorists.

As a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate, masks are ineffective for Covid mitigation, at best. Yet Democrats clearly dont care about the dangers of masks or what the science says about mask efficacy. As you can see in one of Jenkins recent political stunts, in which she burns through some half-dozen masks in 36 seconds, nor do Democrats care about the grave impact of discarded masks on the environment, including the billions of discarded masks poisoning the worlds oceans.

As for the illegality of BPSs mask mandate, the board, led by Jenkins, voted in August to extend a mask mandate. This defied the DeSantis-endorsed Parents Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of parents to choose whats best for their children, including the choice of whether to mask. Jenkins, along with fellow board members Misty Belford and Cheryl McDougall, voted against mask opt-outs in BPS. Thus, BPS has been sanctioned by the Florida Department of Education.

Yet two days after DeSantiss press conference, BPS did an abrupt about-face, announcing it would allow mask opt-outs effective immediately. BPS cited Brevards recent drop in Covid cases. Jenkins immediately claimed mitigation has paid off, attributing the drop in cases to the mask mandate, even though the data strongly indicates that masks had no effect on cases in Florida.

As for Sofia, Fine revealed over the weekend that criminal investigations are ongoing, and hes working on legislation to put the Brevard County school board members who did this to Sofia in prison for a very long time.

Jason Peirce holds a BA in Literature from Florida State, an MPS in Economic Development from Penn State, and attended Santa Barbara College of Law. He now resides with his beautiful family in the appropriately named Sunshine State of Florida.

More:

Parents Say School Tied Mask On Their Special-Needs Child With Rope - The Federalist

Sen. Josh Hawley pressured U.S. Department of Defense Under Secretary for Defense Policy Colin Kahl to answer questions about the alleged lack of vetting that occurred when the U.S. evacuated mass numbers of people from Afghanistan.

In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, the Missouri Republican revealed that an August 18 email fromthe consul general in Kabul claimed that President Joe Biden authorized officials to err on the side of excess when bringing people onto rescue planes.

This guidance provides clear discretion and direction to fill seats and to provide special consideration for women and children when we have seats, the email read. I expect that C-17 flight volume will increase.

Kahl claimed that this guidance was justified.

We had excess capacity to bring people out, Kahl said. And so what the president was signaling was if there were other clearly Afghans at risk, that we can safely bring into the airport and get off the airfield we should do that.

Hawley said he was not aware of evidence that U.S. officials vetted the 116,700 people who were not citizens and not special immigrant visa holders, but were packed onto planes and evacuated from Afghanistan after the Biden administrations hasty withdrawal

What Im driving at is, we know that weve got major problems of vetting of the people who were brought to this country, who were evacuated and brought to this country,said Hawley. So, you testified in September that those evacuated, about 6,000 American citizens, you testified in September that the SIVs were about 1,200 to 1,300, that leaves about 116,700 people, based on the 124,000 neo-number that youve been offering, 116,700 who were not citizens, who were not SIVs, and we just dont know much about who were those people?

Its a mix-mash of a lot of different categories, Kahl said About 84 percent of the people we brought out were Afghans at risk of various kinds.

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

The rest is here:

Hawley Presses Pentagon Official On Why Administration Prioritized Packing Planes Over Vetting Afghan Evacuees - The Federalist

The name Federalists was adopted both by the supporters of ratification of the U.S. Constitution and by members of one of the nations first two political parties. Alexander Hamilton was an influential Federalist who wrote many of the essays in The Federalist, published in 1788. These articles advocated the ratification of the Constitution. Later, those who supported Hamiltons aggressive fiscal policies formed the Federalist Party, which grew to support a strong national government, an expansive interpretation of congressional powers under the Constitution through the elastic clause, and a more mercantile economy. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, painted by John Trumbull circa 1805, public domain)

The name Federalists was adopted both by the supporters of ratification of the U.S. Constitution and by members of one of the nations first two political parties.

In the clash in 1788 over ratification of the Constitution by nine or more state conventions, Federalist supporters battled for a strong union and the adoption of the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists fought against the creation of a stronger national government and sought to leave the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the Constitution, intact.

The Federalists included big property owners in the North, conservative small farmers and businessmen, wealthy merchants, clergymen, judges, lawyers, and professionals. They favored weaker state governments, a strong centralized government, the indirect election of government officials, longer term limits for officeholders, and representative, rather than direct, democracy.

Faced with forceful Anti-Federalist opposition to a strong national government, the Federalists published a series of 85 articles in New York City newspapers in which they advocated ratification of the Constitution. A compilation of these articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (under the pseudonym Publius), were published as The Federalist in 1788.

Through these papers and other writings, the Federalists successfully articulated their position in favor of adoption of the Constitution.

In light of charges that the Constitution created a strong national government, they were able to argue that the separation of powers among the three branches of government protected the rights of the people. Because the three branches were equal, none could assume control over the other.

When challenged over the lack of individual liberties, the Federalists argued that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights because the new Constitution did not vest in the new government the authority to suppress individual liberties.

The Federalists further argued that because it would be impossible to list all the rights afforded to Americans, it would be best to list none.

In the end, however, to ensure adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists promised to add amendments specifically protecting individual liberties (Federalists such as James Madison ultimately agreed to support a bill of rights largely to head off the possibility of a second convention that might undo the work of the first).

Thus upon ratification of the Constitution, Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789. States ratified 10 of these amendments, now designated as the Bill of Rights, in 1791. The first of these amendments contains guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition and has also been interpreted to protect the right of association.

Although the Bill of Rights enabled Federalists and Anti-Federalists to reach a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not extend into the presidency of George Washington; political divisions within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over national fiscal policy, splitting those who previously supported the Constitution into rival groups, some of whom allied with former Anti-Federalists.

Those who supported Alexander Hamiltons aggressive fiscal policies formed the Federalist Party, which later grew to support a strong national government, an expansive interpretation of congressional powers under the Constitution through the elastic clause, and a more mercantile economy.

Their Democratic-Republican opponents, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, tended to emphasize states rights and agrarianism. In 1798, during the administration of John Adams, the Federalists attempted to squelch dissent by adopting the Sedition Act, which restricted freedom of speech and the press, but opposition to this law helped Democratic-Republicans gain victory in the elections of 1800.

Although the Federalist Party was strong in New England and the Northeast, it was left without a strong leader after the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Adams. Its increasingly aristocratic tendencies and its opposition to the War of 1812 helped to fuel its demise in 1816.

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

See the original post here:

Federalists | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted on Thursday that the basis for targeting and potentially charging parents concerned about what their children are learning in schools with domestic terrorism was a letter from the National School Boards Association, not real evidence.

When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick? Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan asked during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday.

I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time Garland began before Jordan interrupted him.

So you read the letter? Thats your source? Jordan asked incredulously. Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said theres been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?

Garland then confirmed it wasnt until NSBA contacted him that his department began to investigate claims of violence and terrorism.

Well, the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kinds of threats. When we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence Garland said before Jordan interjected again.

The source for this was the National School Boards Association letter, Jordan reiterated before his time expired.

The NSBA sent a letter to the Biden administration last month begging 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 school board organization claimed 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 administration did not escalate to a level that even yielded arrests or charges on the local level, yet Garland quickly directed the 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.

Multiple state school board associationsreported that they were not consulted before the NSBA sent its letter to the Biden administration. While a handful of the state associations simply said they were unaware of the NSBAs letter until it was published, most state groups condemned the national associations request to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents and said the protests theyve experienced have not warranted law enforcement involvement beyond the local and state level.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association voted unanimously to withdraw from its parent organization in protest of the national organizations political war on parents.

During his hearing, Garland also confirmed that no one involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot has been charged with insurrection.

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 here:

Garland Admits War On Parents Sprang From NSBA Letter, Not Evidence - The Federalist