Tag: Chris Bedford

Pastor Ché Ahn and Attorney Mathew Staver joined Senior Editor Christopher Bedford to discuss their recent lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his actions in banning religious worship amid the ongoing government lockdown. Ahn is the founder and head pastor at Harvest International Ministry and Harvest Rock Church, and Staver is a founding member of Liberty Counsel.

Ahn argued Gov. Newsom imposed a double standard in shutting down religious services while praising the reckless protests and looting that ensued following the death of George Floyd, despite their lack of compliance with CDC guidelines. Staver said the Constitution makes it clear the government cannot prevent citizens from gathering to worship.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson joins Federalist Senior Editor Christopher Bedford to discuss his historic ratings surge and why he’s resonating with the public right now. Carlson shares his thoughts on recent cultural upheaval, elites, riots, vandalism, the state of the American right, and answers the $1,000,000 question: What does Tucker Carlson want?

Carlson calls on Republicans who are elected to congress and those who run right-wing think tanks to step up and represent the values of their voters. While the left runs nearly every institution in American social and political life, Republicans consistently fail their voters by not acting, Carlson says.

Lee Edwards joined Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky and Senior Editor Christopher Bedford to compare the modern upheaval of the far left to that of the 1960s. Edwards is a Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation and has been involved in center right politics since the 1960s since he co-founded the Young Americans for Freedom Foundation. He also served as the communications director for Barry Goldwater, has authored dozens of books, and has been called the “voice of the silent majority” by The New York Times.

Edwards said the behavioral differences are that the far left protesters in the late 1960s aimed to work within the constitutional order. Their legal goals were achieved through debate and discussion rather than an uncompromising, unproductive destruction of founding principles and physical representations of those principles.