Category Archives: Federalist

Alaska Republicans are calling on the Kentucky GOP to formally censure Sen. Mitch McConnell for the bluegrass senators interference in the Alaskan Senate contest against the party-endorsed candidate.

On Thursday, the Alaskan Republican Partys District 9 central committee passed a resolution to condemn the Senate minority leaders spending on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The incumbent senator running for a fourth full term in the upper chamber is locked in a tight contest against Donald Trump-backed challenger Kelly Tshibaka, who is also endorsed by the Alaskan Republican Party.

McConnells super PAC to reclaim the majority, the Senate Leadership Fund, is spending heavily in the race between two Republicans, which the latest polls show is a tied match. According to the Anchorage Daily News, McConnells political operation has poured more than $7 million into the Alaskan contest instead of using that money towards ripe pick-up opportunities in Nevada and Arizona.

We request the Senate Leadership Fund immediately stop the attack ads against Kelly Tshibaka and discontinue all support of Senator Murkowski, District 9 Republicans demanded. Their resolution went on to demand Kentucky GOP leadership censure their senator for meddling in Alaskas party affairs while the minority leader abandons efforts at capturing the majority.

We request the Republican Party of Kentucky leadership act against Senator Mitch McConnell for his inappropriate behavior against Alaska Republicans and Republican endorsed candidate Kelly Tshibaka, the Alaska Republicans wrote.

Alaskas District 9 committee based in Anchorage is the second state party group to admonish the Kentucky lawmakers interference, according to Must Read Alaska columnist Suzanne Downing.

The first was District 6, a Homer-area subdivision of the Alaska GOP, Downing wrote.

In September, McConnells PAC reinjected money into the Alaska Senate contest after initially canceling $1.7 million alongside $8 million stripped from Republican Arizona Senate nominee Blake Masters. McConnell later pulled another $10 million from the Arizona race, leaving the Republican candidate abandoned by the primary super PAC charged with reclaiming the upper chamber.

Both Masters and Tshibaka have pledged not to support McConnell for another term in GOP leadership.

The decision to spend scarce resources on an ally in Alaska instead of a tight race in Arizona to bring down a Democrat incumbent drew criticism from former President Donald Trump on Monday.

Kelly Tshibaka is doing very well in Alaska, probably leading horrendously bad Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican (barely!), Trump wrote.

According to the latest aggregate of surveys from RealClearPolitics, which are often manipulated to fit pre-determined narratives, the Arizona Senate race remains a five-point race.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Read more:

Alaska Republicans Call On Kentucky GOP To Censure McConnell

Shortly after Pennsylvanias acting Secretary of State Leigh Chapmantold countiesthat they should ignore election law and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively said mail-in ballots without proper dates cant be counted, the Republican National Committee announced a lawsuit against the Commonwealth.

As The Federalist previouslyreported, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a 3rdCircuit Court decision validating undated mail-in ballots. The high court vacated the lower courts ruling, meaning the 3rdCircuits decision can no longer act as precedent in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey the states under the lower courts jurisdiction.

But Chapman decided the Supreme Courts decision provides no justification for counties to exclude ballots based on a minor omission, and we expect that counties will continue to comply with their obligation to count all legal votes. In other words, Chapman advised all of Pennsylvanias 67 counties to continue counting undated mail-in ballots if they so choose, creating countless inconsistencies in how ballots will be tabulated in the upcoming midterm election.

The RNCs joint lawsuit with the Pennsylvania GOP and the National Republican Congressional Committeearguesthat undated mail-in ballots should not be counted because Pennsylvania state law requires voters to properly date their ballots, while also noting that the court has previously affirmed the dating requirement.The RNC has asked the state Supreme Court to order counties to segregate undated and dated ballots if nothing else.

As the Pennsylvania legislature and U.S. Supreme Court have made clear, undated mail-in ballots should not be counted, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a press release. This lawsuit is the latest step in Republican efforts to promote free, fair, and transparent elections in the Keystone State.

Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) hasalso fileda petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of several voters concerned about Chapmans insistence on counting faulty mail-in ballots.

The law of the Commonwealth is clear that undated and incorrectly dated mail-in ballots must not be counted. And after the U.S. Supreme Courts actions last week, no federal law says otherwise, RITE President and CEO Derek Lyons said in a statement. When voters cast a ballot, they should be confident that election officials are protecting the integrity of elections, not abusing their discretion to chase partisan outcomes.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The rest is here:

RNC Sues PA For Telling Counties To Count Faulty Mail-In Ballots

1. The Federalist Society owns the Supreme Court, so why cant they stop whining?  Vox.com
2. 'A Moment of Truth for the Federalist Society': Politics or Principle?  POLITICO
3. Conservative U.S. judge mocks Federalist Society's critics at annual convention  Reuters
4. 4 Supreme Court justices who voted to reverse Roe get warm reception at Federalist Society dinner  CNN
5. What Is the Federalist Society and Its Connection to Supreme Court Judges?  Teen Vogue
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read more:

The Federalist Society owns the Supreme Court, so why cant they stop whining? - Vox.com

Flint, Michigans longtime city clerk is retiring after an election integrity group sent a letter to her office demanding she balance out the number of Democrat and Republican election inspectors.

On Sept. 6, Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME) and attorney Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society sent a demand letter to Flint and City Clerk Inez Brown threatening legal action if they do not balance out the number of partisan poll watchers before the November general election. As previouslyreported, during Flints Aug. 2 primary, the city hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican election inspectors in direct violation of a Michigan statestatutethat requires equal representation of party election inspectors.

On Sept. 8, Brown, after serving as Flints city clerk for 25 years, abruptlyannounced her resignationeffective Sept. 30 roughly one month before the November election. Brown gave no reason for her resignation and caught city officials by surprise.

My administrative office was taken by surprise, Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeleytold the Flint Beat. I had no foreknowledge of this occurring this soon. Because of Browns resignation, Neeley reached out to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Bensons office for help running the citys elections. Bensonis up for re-election this year, raising questions about the ethics of her involvement in Flints elections.

Can her office be considered impartial in running the elections in Flint? Patrice Johnson, chair of PIME told The Federalist. The law states that if you are running for office, you cannot be an election inspector in the precinct in which youre running.

Despite such questions, Johnson sees Browns resignation as a step in the right direction. Browns tenure as Flint city clerk has led to multiple controversies, including giving mayoral candidates thewrong filing deadline in 2015and alleged failure toprocess absentee ballots.

The pressure weve put on the city led to this, Johnson said. This is a HUGE win.

Regardless of Browns resignation, Johnson expects Flint to fully comply with PIMEs demand letter and balance its number of partisan election inspectors in time for the November election.

In a state with more than 7 million registered voters, and where an election inspector need not live in the precinct in which they work, there is no excuse for an unhealthy imbalance of workers at our township and municipal elections, she said.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Go here to see the original:

Flint Clerk Resigns After Failing To Balance Partisan Poll Watchers

The Republican National Committee hasfiled a lawsuit against the city of Flint, Michigan, for failing to hire an equal number of poll workers from each of the two major political parties in preparation for the midterm elections.

Michigan law requires election officials appoint an equal number of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party. Despite a demand letter from the RNC, Flint has failed to comply with state statutes. Roughly only 120 of the 680 election inspectors hired in Flint for the 2022 midterms are Republican, the newly filed lawsuit alleges. While Flint recently told the RNC it hired 50 more Republican-affiliated poll watchers, it refused to further ensure equal party representation among election workers.

That means only 18 percent of Flints approximately 680 election inspectors are Republican. Not to mention that on the citys absentee ballot counting boards, the lawsuit claims, there are only six Republicans to 56 Democrats a 9 to 1 ratio.

Michigan election law clearly states that election commissioners have a responsibility to hire an equal partisan breakdown of election inspectors, but Flint has hired hundreds more Democrats than Republicans, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. This is unacceptable and unfair to Michigan voters: Republicans are going to court to deliver the fairness that Michiganders deserve.

The RNCs lawsuit follows another election-related controversy in Flint.

After reports surfaced that city officials had disproportionately hired more Democrat than Republican poll watchers during Michigans Aug. 2 primary, attorneys for Pure Integrity Michigan Elections sent a letter to the city demanding it balance out the number of partisan poll watchers before the November general election. Flints longtime, controversy-riddled city clerk, Inez Brown, announced she was stepping down two days after receiving the letter.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

See the rest here:

RNC Sues Flint For Stacking Polls With Democrat Workers

Contents

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal, under the pseudonym Publius. Addressed to the People of the State of New York, the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madisons famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, appeared in book form in 1788. TitledThe Federalist, it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

WATCH: Secrets of the Founding Fathers on HISTORY Vault

James Madison

GraphicaArtis/Getty Images

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nations ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War.

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between Federalists, who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and Antifederalists, who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers, and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

John Jay

Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Conventions confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name Publius, after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

Scroll to Continue

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Alexander Hamilton

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage, or to quell internal insurrections such as Shayss Rebellion.

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didnt work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

In Federalist 10, which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieus assertion that true democracyincluding Montesquieus concept of the separation of powerswas feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties) within it. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests, he wrote. [Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]

After emphasizing the central governments weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22, Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the governments power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary, Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate, Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of governmentlegislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nations first Congress.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004).Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010).If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers. Constitutional Rights Foundation.Dan T. Coenen, Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers. University of Georgia School of Law, April 1, 2007.

Link:

Federalist Papers: Summary, Authors & Impact - HISTORY

Amid a national crisis of confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation following years of revelations the agency has repeatedly abused its powers to rig elections for Democrats, newly public documents display yet another FBI abuse of power.

Documents obtained by Daily Caller reporter Gabe Kaminsky indicate the FBI has secretly pressured an unknown number of Americans to sign away their constitutional right to bear arms without being convicted of any crime in a regular court of law, another constitutional right.

The existence of a form that FBI employees have reportedly pressured Americans to sign after appearing at their doors was uncovered after a legal battle to get the FBI to answer an open records request from Gun Owners of America (GOA).

The people targeted with these forms are not otherwise prohibited persons and have not committed any actual crime with which they can be charged, Robert Olson, GOAs counsel, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The FBI claims it discontinued the use of the form in 2019, but the obtained records show the FBI used the form to deprive American citizens of their natural rights outside the constitutional mechanism of a proper trial in U.S. courts at least 15 times.

The FBI declined to identify any statutory justification for the forms, Kaminsky writes.

Several of those the FBI pressured into signing the form were investigated after being reported as making threats of violence on social media.

Many leftists consider disagreeing with their views to constitute violence. That is the rationale Big Tech companies that control what Americans can see online use to ban those who say men cant become women, including Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson. In the United Kingdom, people have been visited by police for disagreeing with leftist gender ideology, and in Finland, a member of Parliament has been prosecuted in court for quoting the Bible on homosexuality.

The Biden administration has also defined many common political views of conservatives as domestic terrorist threats. Last week, President Joe Biden associated the 74 million Americans who voted for his opponent in 2020 with domestic extremists, or in other words a terrorist threat. A 2021 Department of Homeland Security memo gave as examples of domestic violent extremism views shared by tens of millions of Americans, including supporting only legal immigration, raising concerns about mass mail-in balloting, and objecting to Covid lockdowns.

Half of independent voters and 68 percent of Republican voters think the FBI and Department of Justice are corrupt, according to a poll out two weeks ago.

FBI whistleblowers recently told Congress the Biden administration is demanding they reclassify cases as domestic extremism to pad their numbers and inflate this threat. This is only one of a cascade of recent public disclosures demonstrating the federal law enforcement agencys mass corruption.

See more here:

Docs: FBI Unlawfully Pushed Americans To Forfeit Gun Rights

In a town hall in Queens, New York, on Wednesday night, self-proclaimed socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is up for re-election, responded to her enraged constituents in a fake Latino accent: All right, all right, listen! All right, listen! Listen OK, listen! The congresswoman also danced mockingly to the beat of angry voters chanting, AOC has got to go!

Its unclear whether the dancing was meant to be funny, cute, or dismissive. Her furious constituents,concernedabout crime rates and gender-bending craziness, continued to heckle.

Its also unclear if using the accent was meant to mock herpredominantlyHispanic constituency, or if she was trying to garner Latino cred. This wouldnt be the first time AOC has used fake accents. The congresswoman has used ablaccentin the past, perhaps taking a cue from another Democrat superstar,Hillary Clinton.

AOC really likes using race to her advantage. In a 2020 interview during the Black Lives Matter race riots when left-wing attention was centered on black Americans, AOCsaid,I always say Latinos are black, causing many to speculate the comment had to do with her desire to be the biggest victim. And in a recentGQinterview, AOC tried to brandish her victim status by claiming she may not be alive by September due to the countrys hatred for women of color such as her.

In a surprising turn for New Yorks liberal 14th District, AOCs constituents have been unafraid to show their dissatisfaction with her. At yet another town hall in the Bronx, she was lectured by constituents for voting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Liz Cheney to send yet another$725 millionto Ukraine on top of the billions in taxpayer dollars the U.S. has already sent. Youre voting to start a nuclear war, her constituents told her. Rather than giving an explanation for her vote, AOC scolded her constituent for supposedly speaking out of turn.

Another constituent called her a sell-out and a war hawk: Tulsi Gabbard, shes left the Democratic Partybecause theyre a bunch of war hawks. You ran as an outsider, yet youve been voting to start this war in Ukraine. Youre voting to start a third nuclear war with Russia and China. Why are you playing with the lives of American citizens?

The lefts radical agenda isnt working for Americans. Whether you are on the right or the left, families are feeling the 40-year record-high Bidenflation. Every day its harder to afford gas, groceries, and heating bills. On top of all that, millions are terrified of our reckless and self-interested leaders risking nuclear war with Russia.

When people are this angry and scared, sassy dance moves, fake accents, and dismissive narcissism only stoke the flames. AOCs tired tricks arent working anymore, even in New York.

Evita Duffy is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Link:

Fake Accents And Sassy Dance Moves Won't Save AOC

>The Federalist Papers is a treatise on free government in peace and security. It is the outstanding American contribution to the literature on constitutional democracy and federalism, and a classic of Western political thought.

The Federalist Papers were written in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While modern-day readers might see it as inevitable, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. In Philadelphia, the delegates rebelled against the existing Articles of Confederation and looked to the states, not the existing government, for ratification and approval of the new government. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new Constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize it as a response to new emergencies. After the convention, Tench Coxe became the coordinator in Philadelphia for those who supported the Constitution, while George Mason became the coordinator for New York for those who opposed it. Hundreds and hundreds of letters were written regarding the Constitution; "Cato" and "The Federal Farmer" attacked while "Caeser" replied. Both George Washington and Ben Franklin, probably the two most influential men in the country at the time, supported the Constitution.

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the Constitution was in the most doubt. The state's delegation did not approve the draft in Philadelphia because two of its three delegates left during the protest and abandoned Alexander Hamilton without a vote. Governor Clinton, the leading figure in New York politics, opposed the new government because New York had become an independent nation under the Articles of Confederation, making itself rich through tariffs on trade with its neighboring states.

Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, more so than in any other state. This new plan entailed a sustained barrage of arguments appearing in newspapers four times per week. Because of the massive amounts of work, he decided that he needed two co-authors to help him write under the pseudonym of "Publius." He originally had asked others to assist him in the project, but, luckily for him and future generations, James Madison, a Virginia citizen, was available because the Continental Congress was sitting in New York during that period. John Jay was also asked because of his vast foreign diplomatic service. Unfortunately, John Jay got sick shortly after the project commenced and was able to only complete six different papers. That left Hamilton and Madison to finish the rest, a task they were able to complete only because they relied heavily on notes they had used in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia earlier.

Eventually, the books were published serially in different newspapers in New York (four out of five of the major newspapers of the time) and were republished in book form near the end of the run. Unfortunately, the ratification vote in New York failed and New Yorkers only ratified the Constitution later, becoming the 11th state to do so. James Madison, however, took the published books to assist in the ratification debate in Virginia, and the papers survived to serve a far greater purpose than mere propaganda. The Federalist Papers are the single greatest interpretive source of the Constitution of the United States, widely considered one of the best explanations of what the Founding Fathers' purpose was in the passage of the document that governs the United States of America.

Philosophically, The Federalist Papers should also be considered in the context in which they were written. The revolutionary era was characterized by a quest for security from foreign nations, for peace in America, and for individual freedom. These values, it was hoped, could be achieved by united action. Whereas earlier plans for union were largely motivated by a desire for security and peace, those of the period under consideration were the first appearance of the "freedom motif." That motif came to the fore during the colonists' struggle with England and was recognized by the Articles of Confederation. In the arguments in Philadelphia and the subsequent Federalist Papers, this same motif held force. Arguments of unity and security, which could seem absurd to readers only familiar with the power of the modern United States, were sincere concerns and problems at that time.

Read more from the original source:

The Federalist Papers Study Guide | GradeSaver

Corporate media outlets were abuzz with excitement on Thursday morning over the scientific confirmation that babies in the womb visibly recoil at the taste of leafy greens such as kale.

The English study in question, published on Wednesday, found that babies in the womb have strong, physical reactions to the flavor profiles of the foods their mothers ingest.

Thanks to previous scholarship, scientists already knew that unborn infantstaste buds develop anatomically at 8 weeks gestation and can detect tastants from 14 weeks gestation. There is also significant evidence that by 16 weeks in utero, babies regularly swallow and taste amniotic fluid.

Researchers for this particular study, which was conducted on 100 babies between32 to 36 weeks gestation, took the in utero taste consensus one step further when they determined that unborn infants are capable of detecting, analyzing, expressing preference for, and classifying the chemosensory information conveyed by flavor compounds originating in [the] maternal diet.

Thats why when mothers in the study were fed carrots, which were classified as tasting sweet, fruity, and woody compared to other vegetables, babies, as measured on 4D ultrasound scans, expressed a higher laughter-face than the control group, which was fed nothing. On the contrary, unborn infants that were exposed to kale through their mothers expressed a higher rate of cry-face reactions. That facial feedback was attributed to the vegetables unique bitterness flavor profile.

Since babies learn some of the most important, long-lasting physical and cognitive skills required for neonatal life in early gestation, this particular studys significance was not lost on the media.

You guys have to see this! one Today Show host exclaimed as her coworkers cooed over the amazing baby faces and adorable reactions pictured in the findings.

CBS News referred to the babies in the study as fetuses, but still highlighted the findings in a positive light.

Its hard to believe that the same outlets that published pro-abortion propaganda over Fathers Day weekend praising dads decisions to end their babys life in the womb and propel Democrats radical pro-abortion agenda to the front of their coverage are now celebrating the fact that babies in the womb are living, breathing humans capable of amazing things.

One might think that the acknowledgment of the incredible complexity and sanctity of an unborn babys life is a win, but that would be a severe misreading of just how committed media are to aiding Democrats in their quest to legalize ending life in the womb.

In the most recent example of this abortion allyship, the same media that is is hypervigilant about fact-checking Republicans let election-denier (to use the lefts ridiculous phrase) and baby-denier Stacey Abrams get away with claiming babys heartbeats in the womb are manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a womans body.

In fact, some media outlets such as The New York Times boost similar outlandish claims in their own pages.

The corrupt press doesnt just conduct slanted polls designed to twist Americans true feelings about abortion. They also let Democrats, whose abortion extremism would eliminate any legal protections for kale-resistant babies from violence, get away with prenatal murder without any scrutiny. The corrupt media cheer it.

All these editorial decisions are designed to disguise the fact that Democrats radical calls for unlimited abortion through all nine months of pregnancy dont sit well with Americans on either side of the political aisle. Thats why, when pressed, media activists hide the fact that they havent grilled Democrats about their deeply unpopular abortion positions.

The media can coo over unborn infants squirming when they eat vegetables all they want, but at the end of the day, remember that the corrupt press always sides with the people who are perfectly fine with ending those preborn lives.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Originally posted here:

Media Marvel At Prenatal Response To Flavor While Pushing Abortion