“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams tried to give a “defense” of President Joe Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal but ended up indicting the entire woke military brass running the operations in Kabul.

In an episode of “Real Coffee with Scott Adams” titled “Disgraced President Biden’s Botched Afghanistan Withdrawal and Lots More,” Adams explained that he is a “president supporter” who wants whoever is in office to do a good job.

“This defense will only make sense to people who have experience in big organizations. If you’ve ever been in a big organization, and you’re the head of the organization and you ordered something to happen that was unpopular with the people who had to execute it, what happened? Did the people who needed to execute this unpopular order give you all the options accurately? Because the people at the lower levels are going to try to manage the boss,” Adams explained. “It’s a normal phenomenon that if people think the boss is making the wrong decision, they will resist in a passive way that you can’t quite determine if they’re really cooperating, or are they intentionally killing something by doing it poorly.”

This concept, Adams said, applies to the top U.S. military generals who profit off of bad decisions that keep bad operations going.

“Do you think the military wanted to remove everybody from Afghanistan on the timeline that either Trump or Biden wanted? Either Trump or Biden, doesn’t matter which timeline you pick, do you think the generals who are looking for jobs in the manufacturing industry, who make military stuff after they leave Afghanistan and they’ve got other bosses to please — don’t they have their current boss, which is the president, but then they also have their five-years-from-now boss or sooner that is making weapons?” Adams said. “And if you’ve got a war, you can sell more weapons, and you can make an argument that it’s in the interest of the United States to stay — keep fighting those ISIS guys and Al Qaeda.”

Biden made it clear he wanted to leave Afghanistan, so Adams said the generals gave him “sh-tty options” and parsed out possible threats or embarrassments to shoo the president away from making good decisions.

“They start botching it. They slow roll — and you ever heard that term, slow roll? — that’s what people do in a corporation when they don’t like what the boss told them to do. Oh, they do it, but they slow roll it. … What do you do? Fire everybody? That’s one way to go. Fire everybody. OK, but what will the next people do? Probably slow roll, and again, I’m not even sure that would work, and it would take a while and it would be disruptive and all that stuff.”

Another option, Adams said, is to lean into what the generals are saying.

“They tell you the whole world will fall apart if you order us to do this, but you know, they’re f-cking with you. They’re slow-rolling you. Here’s what you do. You tell them to do it anyway by that date, and you tell them that if there are heads on the ground, it is their f-cking fault. Then you’ll fire them. Do it anyway. If you f-ck up, then I’ll fire you. … If you incompetent motherf-ckers who are trying to make this happen, if you won’t even give me a good option to get out of Afghanistan, you’re going to take the bad f-cking option. And you’re gonna get out of Afghanistan because let me tell you the thing that’s not gonna change: the decision. We’re getting out of f-cking Afghanistan. You can do it right or you can do it f-cking wrong, but we’re getting out of Afghanistan.”

Adams ended the segment by claiming, “That’s leadership.”

“If you said to me, what would leadership look like? It would look like this. It will look like a botched, disgraced move. And we might find out someday that his generals were the problem. And we might find out that he overrode the generals and said, ‘Look, this is a leadership decision. A sh-t ton of people are going to die.’ … You can’t avoid that part. So you might as well do what’s good for the United States,” Adams said. “You know what that is? Get the f-ck out of Afghanistan. Messy, if it’s the only option you’re gonna give me f-cking generals. If you generals will only give me bad options, I’m gonna take the bad f-cking option.”

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

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

The Taliban now has access to more than $85 billion worth of U.S. military equipment abandoned by the Afghan army.

Shortly after President Joe Biden abruptly withdrew U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the Afghan government collapsed and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. When faced with advancing Taliban fighters, the Afghan military also shrunk away despite two decades of U.S. time, effort, and taxpayer dollars poured into military equipment designated for the Afghans.

The Taliban quickly seized this bureaucratic void and took over the capital city of Kabul where thousands of pieces of American weaponry and military tools were lying in wait.

Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., warned that “due to the negligence of this administration,” the Taliban possess more than $85 billion worth of U.S. military equipment including 75,000 vehicles, more than 200 airplanes and helicopters, and more than 600,000 small arms and light weapons.

“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85 percent of the countries in the world,” Banks said.

The Taliban now have more Black Hawk helicopters than 85% of countries in the worldpic.twitter.com/ZeoPl3kyj4

— Bruno Maçães (@MacaesBruno) August 26, 2021

In addition to weaponry and other heavy machinery, Banks said the Taliban also has access to tools such as night-vision goggles, body armor, medical supplies, and biometric devices containing fingerprints, scans, and other biographical information of the United States’ Afghan allies.

“This administration still has no plan to get this military equipment or these supplies back,” Banks said after receiving a briefing on the situation.

The Biden administration lamented the loss over the last two weeks but has yet to name any specific plans to recover any of the losses.

“We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defense materials has gone, but certainly, a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said shortly after the collapse.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Taliban’s seizure of billions of dollars worth of military equipment: “The Defense Department has been working to account for all of the defense articles that… may have fallen into the hands of the Taliban.” pic.twitter.com/aClAnew2XJ

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) August 19, 2021

“We obviously don’t want to see our equipment in the hands of those who would act against our interests, or the interests of the Afghan people,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said at a press briefing.

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

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

A new pre-print Israeli study has found that people with natural immunity to COVID-19 could be 13 times less likely to contract the respiratory virus than those who were solely vaccinated against the disease.

Conducted by researchers at Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University, the yet-to-be peer-reviewed study found that when comparing individuals previously infected with the virus and those that received two jabs of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, those with natural infection saw greater protection against the delta variant and breakthrough infection.

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021,” the study read. “The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.”

The analysis also found that solely vaccinated individuals “were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.”

The study ultimately concluded that “natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity” and that “individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

This is one reason why vaccine mandates and passports are wrong:

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please | Science | AAAS https://t.co/Ydsc5LWxFL

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 27, 2021

While the Israeli Health Ministry has indicated that the delta variant may be more likely to cause reinfection among recovered COVID-19 patients than previous variants, the data shows that natural immunity remains effective at offering robust protection against the virus. According to the Health Ministry, 4,811 Israelis have been reinfected with coronavirus, which accounts for only 0.47 percent of the nation’s total recoveries.

Israeli Health Ministry data suggests the Delta variant may be more effective at causing COVID reinfection among recovered patients than earlier strains of the coronavirus, but immunity from prior infection still appears to be protective. https://t.co/dAiFu0tEWP

— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) August 26, 2021

Israel remains one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, ranking third in doses administered per 100 people.

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

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

On the pandemic as a 2020 election issue, Joe Biden was the media’s preferred candidate for president, not so much because he screamed confidence that he could stop people from dying. (He was literally underground for most of his public appearances.) But because he properly showed that he cared people were dying.

He had a soft voice and manner that soothed cable news anchors and brought comfort to reporters who find no greater arousal than in a man who cries in public.

The trick has earned Biden a lot of stock with the media, which then assured the public that he is the staid, competent leader this country needed after four years of Donald Trump.

He tried it again Thursday during a highly anticipated press conference to address the ISIS suicide bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, that left 13 U.S. service members dead and more than a dozen others injured.

“They were part of the bravest, most capable, and the most selfless military on the face of the Earth,” Biden said. “And they were part of, simply, what I call the ‘backbone of America.’ They’re the spine of America, the best the country has to offer. Jill and I — our hearts ache, like I’m sure all of you do as well, for all those Afghan families who have lost loved ones, including small children, or been wounded in this vicious attack. And we’re outraged as well as heartbroken.”

Later in the conference, Biden bowed his head in what I assume was anguish ™ or maybe frustration ™ while a reporter asked him about his responsibility in the fallout.

The problem with the performance, though, is that the dead didn’t lose their lives because of a freak virus that the entire world is grappling with. They died because under Biden’s command, our military did not secure the perimeter of the Kabul airport that Americans are using to exit. And it has been under his command that the administration is scurrying against the clock to evacuate as many Americans as possible, lest we further tick off the new Taliban government that Biden has allowed to call the shots.

Biden and Jill’s hearts can ache 1,000 times over but this is his fault, and putting that tried and true empathy on display doesn’t change anything.

The very quality that the media used to assist in Biden’s election has us where we are right now. Since Inauguration Day, 200,000 people have died of the coronavirus with infections continuing to surge; a wave of just under 1 million new migrants have crushed the border; and now at least 13 Americans are dead, not while fighting a war, but while trying to leave one.

Empathy was nice for getting Biden into the White House. It hasn’t been much use since.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Texas Democrats’ attempts to stop a Republican-led effort to secure elections in the state came to an official end this week when the state House advanced the bill 79-37.

For weeks, the state House Democrats paraded around Washington, D.C., more than 1,000 miles away from their constituents to stall a return to their duties in the state legislature. During that time, several of the tantrum-throwing, vaccinated lawmakers contracted COVID-19 after partying on a maskless flight out of the Lone Star State.

They also likely infected several Nancy Pelosi and White House aides during their protests in the nation’s capital city, where the Biden administration openly praised their demonstrations.

“I applaud them standing for the rights of all Americans and all Texans to express their voice through their vote, unencumbered,” Vice President Kamala Harris said.

The Democrats first fled the state in July as a last-ditch attempt to protest a GOP bill that was reintroduced in a special session by Republicans who wanted more election security for mail-in ballots, including voter ID. Many of them took to social media to explain that their swift exit from the state on private jets was a “sacrifice” in their fight against “voter suppression” that they claim was orchestrated to oppress minorities.

Now that legislators met a quorum to advance the bill, the legislation will either go to the state Senate for a vote, which previously passed a separate version of the legislation, or will go through conference committee to undergo changes.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who strongly opposed the Democrats’ partisan scheming, pledged to sign the election integrity bill into law after it makes its way to his desk.

“Election integrity is being debated on the House floor today. This legislation will make our elections process fair & uniform. Thank you @SenBryanHughes & Rep. Murr for fighting to make it easier to vote & harder to cheat. I look forward to signing this bill into law,” Abbott tweeted.

Election integrity is being debated on the House floor today.

This legislation will make our elections process fair & uniform.

Thank you @SenBryanHughes & Rep. Murr for fighting to make it easier to vote & harder to cheat.

I look forward to signing this bill into law.

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) August 26, 2021

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

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Interested to know what the top liberal legal minds of the United States Supreme Court think about government power and your private property? First, take 10 minutes to read Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion, written for the majority, in the court’s Thursday night decision to stop the ban on rental income; then spend another 10 minutes on Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent.

Here’s a hint: The left thinks its power is so overarching as to impact nearly every citizen, so broadly interpreted as to be essentially limitless, and so singularly vested as to be checked virtually solely at the discretion of the bureaucracy itself.

“Substantially … Tailored”

The absurdity begins in the opening paragraph of Breyer’s dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. There, he lauds what he describes as the government’s limited and judicious use of its power, writing, “the [Centers for Disease Control]’s current order is substantially more tailored than its prior eviction moratorium, which automatically applied nationwide.”

Therefore, he reasons, there’s no reason to even consider if the CDC has any authority on the matter.

How tailored is it, though? He gets to that two paragraphs later, when he cites the number of American counties the order applies to: Ninety percent; the vast majority of the country. This, he openly admits, is the left’s idea of “substantially more tailored;” it’s right there in the open.

Limitless Authority

So where does this “tailored” power come from, exactly? According to the CDC, it comes from the Public Health Service Act, a law Congress passed in 1944 to handle outbreaks of serious disease. It reads:

The Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

What’s that got to do with banning property owners from doing business with renters? To forbid them from ejecting squatters from their land? As written, not much at all: Every one of these powers is specific to, as Kavanaugh writes, “identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself.”

But according to Breyer, the Public Health Act essentially says “we can kill your dog in a plague, so we also have the power to say you don’t have to work during COVID” — a broad interpretation of congressionally authorized power at best.

How does he get there? Simple: the part of the law that grants the surgeon general the power to enact “other measures, as in his judgment might be necessary.”

Or, by not specifically naming every single means of identifying, isolating, and destroying COVID, Congress gave the CDC limitless authority to do as it pleases. “If Congress,” Breyer assures us, “had meant to exclude these types of measures from its broad grant of authority, it likely would have said so.”

Compare that reasoning with Kavanaugh’s, who maintains the court expects “Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers.”

The latter is the kind of reading that fits more soundly with, say, the 10th Amendment. written by men who had seen abuse of power, and hoped to curtail it. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” it reads, “nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In fact, this is clear in recent Supreme Court precedent. “Our precedents,” the court wrote in 2020, “require Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.”

A tenant’s relationship with his landlord falls under state law completely; that’s the reason, for example, you don’t hear about government rent-control outside of a number of cities in New York, Maryland, New Jersey, or California.

Bureaucracy über Alles

Congress, of course, could change this, as the 2020 decision notes, and for a while they did: that’s where the ban on moratorium came from in the first place.

So what happened? The congressional moratorium expired on Dec. 31.

But couldn’t Congress just extend it if they wanted to? Yes, and under Biden they did, adding one more month in the second COVID stimulus; and then they declined to extend it further.

So why is still going on? Because the CDC decided it didn’t need Congress anyway, extending the moratorium on its own apparent authority through March, then through June, then through July, and all the way to Thursday night, when Kavanaugh joined Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett in putting a stop to it.

That decision down didn’t come quickly, either. In June, Kavanaugh joined the other side, staying the court’s hand in order to, he reasoned, allow long-appropriated government funds to go toward relief. That’s all the time it would need, the CDC insisted; but they lied, and here we are.

None of that matters, Breyer claims, because this is an emergency, and by going to work, people put themselves at risk of dying. Nevermind that nurses, grocery clerks, flight attendants, bartenders, police officers, construction workers, cab drivers, soldiers, cooks, trash collectors, cameramen, janitors, plumbers, warehouse employees, bouncers, pilots, firemen, musicians, engineers, and a whole host of others have long been back at work. Nevermind that the United States economy needs workers so badly some businesses are going under for lack of them. Just look at the charts!

In dissent, Justice Breyer includes a chart showing the rising number of COVID cases due to the delta variant. He warns that, with the moratorium lifted, the nation may see a wave of mass evictions with severe public-health consequences. pic.twitter.com/kmHfJ73QUA

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) August 27, 2021

Breyer is so convinced of this, he openly admits that backlogged government funds and renters refusing to pay rent is an “injury,” but claims the court has to “compare that injury with the irreparable harm of” eviction.

What irreparable harm, exactly? Only the chart is offered. Breyer completely neglects to even try to explain how evictions are more dangerous than the masses of Americans freely moving out of New York, California, Oregon, D.C., and other COVID-obsessed areas, or going about their day to day business, but in his thinking, he doesn’t need to: The CDC is not to be questioned on law or constitutional authority by any court in this land.

“The public interest,” he writes, “is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the CDC’s judgment.”

Fortunately, his colleagues in the majority disagree: “It is indisputable,” Kavanaugh writes in his conclusion, “that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”

“It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.”

And that’s where the split is: Breyer and his political allies on the left and throughout the Democrat Party have unfailing faith in the technocracy; it’s near-religious, and we’re all living in it.

For the past 18 months, we’ve suffered under the thumb of this sort of unchecked bureaucracy: Closed schools, masked children, shuttered businesses, canceled weddings, restricted hospitals, forbidden funerals — even the public drug dens and homeless camps now filling major cities are products of CDC “guidance.” For “public health and safety,” we’re told.

But while it’s been in full public view these past 18 months, the reality is we have increasingly suffered under the thumb of unchecked bureaucracy since President Woodrow Wilson; its power and influence growing stronger each year, while the executive and congressional power and will to curb it have lessened.

Some of that growth is natural: influence craves influence, power craves power. But much of it is the result either of active policies in favor of it (or a failure to enact policies restricting it), driven by men like Wilson and men like Breyer — highly educated and seriously intelligent men who think that we, the people, ought not rule ourselves; the experts will take care of that.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Amid Illinois Democrats crafting a congressional map that might eliminate Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s district, and conservatives increasingly at odds with the staunch anti-Trump lawmaker, Chicago GOP Chairman Steve Boulton tells The Federalist he thinks Kinzinger is unlikely to prevail in a primary.

“I don’t think his prospects are all that good,” said Boulton. “He’s decided to go this way and take this course [against] President Trump. I think Adam could have been a good candidate had he not done what he did with President Trump. I don’t think many in the party support him.”

“I don’t think he can win a primary,” the chairman also said.”I really don’t. Not a statewide primary. He’s just not going to be able to do it.”

Boulton’s comments come as Kinzinger continues to distance himself from the mainstream Republican Party. Kinzinger was one of 10 GOP members who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and claimed this week the former president’s administration “set [the Biden administration] up to fail” in Afghanistan.

Last month, members of the GOP’s House Freedom Caucus urged House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to implement a rule that would prohibit members who joined an opposing party committee from remaining in the House Republican Conference. This would apply to Kinzinger and Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, who were appointed by Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sit on the Jan. 6. riot commission.

“It is antithetical to have sitting in your conference individuals who have professed that they want to take out the minority leader and that they want to join the Democrats on a witch hunt through the Republican Party to try to take members of the Republican Party out,” GOP Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs said at the time.

Matters seem to be souring for Kinzinger. Democrats in Illinois redrew the state’s legislative map based on census data and have scheduled several hearings prior to next week’s special session to finalize matters. The new map would reportedly eliminate Kinzinger’s district, according to sources who spoke to Politico. ” …[F]ew party operatives in D.C. or Illinois could envision a final plan that leaves much of Kinzinger’s seat intact,” the outlet noted.

Spokeswoman Maura Gillespie from Kinzinger’s office declined to comment, and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Kinzinger claimed recently he would not rule out a run for senator or governor, but Boulton said it would be a mistake.

“He can undertake it if he wants to,” Boulton said. “I’m simply saying that I have my doubts as to whether he can win a statewide primary right now — for either seat. That’s all stuff he brought on himself, he didn’t have to do this.”

Boulton said Kinzinger goes out of his way to grandstand against his own party.

“You have to take a holistic view of President Trump. There’s some bad but there’s an awful lot of good. And Mr. Kinzinger decided only to focus on the bad for his own purposes. That I really take issue with,” he said.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Embattled California Governor Gavin Newsom appears to have flip-flopped on whether he will “regret” any policy decisions he made if recalled from office.

Newsom was adamant during an interview with the Sacramento Bee earlier this month that he wouldn’t regret a “damn thing” even if he was recalled. 

FORMER CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER ENDORSES LARRY ELDER IN CAMPAIGN AGAINST GOV. NEWSOM

“If they kick me out. I’m gonna feel good about what we just did, and not ever regret a damn thing,” Newsom told the Bee. “We put it all out there on this education budget.”

Fast-forward not even a month later with the recall election around the corner and Newsom doesn’t appear to be as confident in his decisions. 

In an interview with the Atlantic published Friday, Newsom was more conscious of the unfavorable polls, saying that he would “own” any electoral defeat that came for him next month.

“If I do fall short, I’ll regret every damn one of those decisions,” Newsom said in regards to recent government initiatives launched under him. “And I don’t want to have any regrets for putting everything out there and doing… what I think is right and what I think is in the best interest of California.”

Newsom’s campaign did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the apparent flip-flop.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Golden State governor is facing down a large recall field featuring a fervor of candidates commanding star power.

Conservative radio host Larry Elder is considered the leading Republican candidate in the recall election. 

Houston Keene is a reporter for Fox News Digital. You can find him on Twitter at @HoustonKeene.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing South Carolina over a ban on mask mandates in schools.

Earlier this summer, the South Carolina state legislature passed a budget bill with conditions prohibiting school districts from using government funds to “require that its students and/or employees wear a face mask at any of its education facilities.” Scientific studies are clear that COVID-19 transmission among children is much lower than among adults but that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration, the CDC, teachers’ unions, and now the ACLU from pushing for students and vaccinated teachers to mask up this fall.

The leftist activist group, which represents several parents of children with disabilities and other groups, is targeting Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, his administration, and certain school districts for prohibiting face-covering requirements because they say the rule “effectively exclude[s] these students with disabilities from participation in the public education system, in violation of the [Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act].”

“School districts with students who have disabilities, including underlying medical conditions, that make them more likely to contract and/or become severely ill from a COVID-19 infection have a legal obligation to ensure that those children can attend school with the knowledge that the school district has followed recommended protocols to ensure their safety,” the lawsuit states, citing the CDC’s anti-science universal masking protocols for children as young as two years old.

“By prohibiting any school from imposing a mask mandate, Proviso 1.108 interferes with that school’s ability to comply with its obligations under federal disability rights laws and illegally forces parents of children with underlying conditions to choose between their child’s education and their child’s health and safety, in violation of the ADA and Section 504,” it continues. “Further, such a prohibition needlessly and unconscionably exposes South Carolina school children and their families to a heightened risk of infection, hospitalization, and death.”

McMaster did not comment on the lawsuit but his spokesman Brian Symmes told NPR that the governor stands by parental choice when it comes to masking.

“While we don’t comment on specific litigation, the only truly inclusive option is to allow every parent to decide whether their child will wear a mask in school. That’s exactly what the General Assembly’s budget proviso does in South Carolina,” Symmes said.

Just last week, President Joe Biden directed the Department of Education to begin targeting Republican states that passed or enacted mask mandate bans for schools. Under the guise of “civil rights” and giving equal justice to Americans under the law, Biden ordered his Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to launch investigations into the states that do not allow face-covering requirements.

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

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here