Connect with us

Politics

No, Racial Preferences In The Military Don’t Improve National Security

Published

on

During oral argument in the college admissions racial preferences cases (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts inquired of United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether the service academies should “rise or fall” with the court’s ruling regarding Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The solicitor general, joined by the Department of Defense (DOD) general counsel, had claimed in briefing that the continued use of racial preferences at the service academies is a “national security imperative,” prompting the question.

The chief justice asked, effectively, whether DOD seeks an exemption for the military from any ruling against Harvard and UNC banning racial preferences’ further use. Prelogar’s replies fell short of asking for a military carveout, but she left the door open, reiterating the military’s alleged “distinctive interests” in using racial preferences and her claims that they are a “truly compelling interest” and “critically important” for the military.

Not addressed in rebuttal arguments were the reasons why there is no compelling national security imperative and how racial preferences are harming our military.

DOD surrogates have made the extraordinary claim that officer-enlisted racial demographic parity, pursued by using racial preferences in military officer accession programs such as the service academies and ROTC, is essential to national security. But their evidence, inappositely grounded in our Vietnam experience, is lacking.

This far-fetched argument was first made in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, which the current court has been asked to overrule. It was contrived to meet the high

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

The Abortion Lies Kamala Will Spew In Atlanta Are The Ones That Killed Amber Thurman And Candi Miller

Published

on

Vice President Kamala Harris will use her short appearance in Atlanta Friday afternoon to falsely blame Georgia’s lifesaving pro-life law for the deaths of at least two women. The untimely passings of Amber Thurman, Candi Miller, and their babies, however, had nothing to do with the Peach State’s protections and everything to do with Democrats and corporate media’s dangerous abortion rhetoric.

ProPublica, an outlet known for doing Democrats’ dirty work, resurfaced Thurman’s and Miller’s 2022 passings this week in an attempt to vilify pro-life laws ahead of the 2024 election. The women’s deaths were both the direct result of a drug regimen responsible for more than half of the nation’s abortions. Still, ProPublica skipped past the sometimes fatal complications and a significant number of emergency room visits associated with mifepristone and misoprostol to insist that the women lost their lives because they and the doctors responsible for treating them were scared out of it by pro-lifers.

Shortly after the articles’ publication, Harris posted a four-part statement to X falsely claiming “Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care.”

“Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again,” she wrote. “Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.”

According to an unnamed senior Harris campaign official, the Democrat will echo these accusations about Trump — many of which

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Never Seen This Before’: Georgia GOP Eyes Comeback With New Strategy After Biden’s 2020 Win

Published

on

For the first time in 28 years, Georgia elected a Democrat as president in 2020, with President Joe Biden winning the state by 11,779 votes. But on-the-ground Republican leaders told The Federalist they hope this year will be different — and that the campaign’s operations are like nothing “seen … before.”

Axios reportedly obtained a copy of Trump campaign training materials that describe the campaign’s 2020 efforts as “inefficient.” The materials reportedly prioritize focusing on “hard-to-reach, low-propensity voters.” The Trump campaign confirmed to The Federalist its efforts to target low-propensity voters and encourage voters to vote early.

“Team Trump is doubling down on our efforts to reach voters where they are at and share President Trump’s plans to make America prosperous again,” RNC Battleground States Communications Director Rachel Reisner told The Federalist in a statement. “Team Trump continues to build out the most sophisticated and modern approach, ever.”

And Republican county chairs are attesting to the new efforts.

DeKalb County

DeKalb Republican Party Chairwoman Marci McCarthy told The Federalist that current operations are “really different from their 2020 operations. I’ve actually never seen this before.”

“We feel like we’re getting great support from the Trump Force 47 team,” McCarthy told The Federalist. “We’re having training in the field offices twice a week, they’re doing phone banking, they’re teaching them how to utilize the technology, how to engage with voters. They’ll do some training with canvassing, and then they’ll take volunteers right out to do canvassing. They also encourage them to

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Conservative PACs Plan To Put New Mexico In Play This Fall

Published

on

No Republican has won statewide in New Mexico for 10 years. A series of ad buys from multiple political action groups aims to change that this November.

Earlier this month, the Piñon Post, a conservative state paper, reported on a new commercial campaign attempting to spoil Democrats’ expectation to maintain the state’s five electoral votes for Kamala Harris and reelect Sen. Martin Heinrich. The ads from a group called Election Freedom, Inc., attack Heinrich and Harris over inflation and the incumbent border crisis.

Derek Dufresne, a consultant for the 501(c)(4) political advocacy group, told The Federalist the New Mexico campaign was “a significant, seven-figure investment,” but did not provide an exact total.

“We are running an aggressive, complete, issue-based campaign focusing on the significant policy failures of Kamala Harris and Martin Heinrich, which will continue through November,” Dufresne said.

The ads highlight high food, energy, and mortgage costs in a border state overwhelmed by migration.

Another ad campaign from the group Frontiers of Freedom Action (FFA) targets Heinrich as one of three western senators hit by a multi-state media blitz highlighting Democrats’ anti-Catholic bigotry. The ads aired in both English and Spanish to target southwestern Hispanics disillusioned by the Democrats’ extremism, which conflicts with religious liberty.

“When Hispanic voters — especially Hispanics who attend Catholic Mass — come to learn about their senator’s record of anti-Catholic bigotry, they are going to be stunned,” George Landrith, the group’s president, said in a press release.

“Republicans too often forget

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending