YouTube Punishes Journalist For Highlighting Democrats’ 2016 Election Denialism

YouTube Punishes Journalist For Highlighting Democrats’ 2016 Election Denialism

In classic Big Tech information suppression form, Google-owned YouTube punished a journalist on Thursday for highlighting just how many Democrats, corporate media outlets, and celebrities denied that former President Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

YouTube’s elections misinformation policy claims that “content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in certain past certified national elections” is subject to removal. The policy explicitly states that these conditions apply to “any past U.S. Presidential election.”

That’s likely why when journalist Matt Orfalea, author of the “Censored News” Substack and contributor at TK News, tried to upload a compilation of Democrats claiming that Trump was an illegitimate president because he “cheated,” the video was instantly demonetized.

The less-than-five-minute video simply shows media clips of Democrats like current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and now-Vice President Kamala Harris who, without any credible evidence to back their denialism, all spread lies and misinformation about the 2016 election with the hopes of undermining the newly-elected Trump.

The video also features corporate media talking heads, late-night hosts, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and even Saturday Night Live characters repeating the lie that “Russia hacked our election.”

YouTube’s email disclosing the censorship declared the video “isn’t suitable for all advertisers” and limited the compilation to “run limited or no ads.” The email also stated that the decision to bar the video from making money was made as part of a “manual” review by someone on the YouTube team.

TK News founder Matt Taibbi announced the censorship in an article on his Substack on Thursday.

“I’d like to thank YouTube for making our point,” Taibbi wrote. “The material in this video does not promote the idea that any election was stolen or illegitimate. On the contrary, it shows a great mass of comments from Democratic partisans and pundits who themselves make that claim, about the 2016 election.”

As Taibbi noted further down in the column, Democrats that peddled election misinformation in 2016 were not censored for their brazen denial. Instead, their baseless doubts were rewarded with incessant media coverage that continues to this day.

“However, the decision to assemble these materials in one place, inviting audiences to consider their meaning, apparently crosses a line,” Taibbi continued. “Now we know: you can deny election results on a platform like YouTube as much as you want, you can even promise disruption, but drawing attention to such behavior angers the algorithm. It’s hard to imagine a better demonstration of the double-standard in content moderation.”

More Democrats denied that Trump won the 2016 election than Americans who claimed President Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected in 2020.

In 2020, Democrats that objected to every GOP certification this century called Sen. Josh Hawley’s election concerns a “coup attempt.” Prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and former President Jimmy Carter supported the theory that Trump was illegitimately elected. More than 1 in 4 House Democrats boycotted the Republican’s inauguration celebrations in 2017.

Yet, it was election integrity supporters who asked questions about the 2020 election that were suppressed by YouTube and other Big Tech companies.


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.

Source

Can Congress Sue Biden Over The Student Loan Constitutional Crisis He Created?

Can Congress Sue Biden Over The Student Loan Constitutional Crisis He Created?

By suddenly adding so-called student loan “forgiveness” to the November elections, President Joe Biden has used politics to paper over the constitutional crisis he precipitated. Under the Constitution, paying off federally insured student loans would be a presidential usurpation not only of the legislative power but also the appropriations power, the taxing power, and the “debting” power.

Starting with his 2020 campaign, Biden’s — and the Democratic Party’s — advocacy of loan cancellation has been an independent political and economic issue, not based on the exigencies and economic stresses caused by lockdowns. A “Fact Sheet” released by the White House the day Biden announced the loan cancellations, goes on at length about “keeping college costs under control,” and it gives the history of federal student loans and the accumulated debts of so many borrowers “since 1980.” The effect of the pandemic-induced lockdowns is referenced, but the phrase “national emergency” is not used. 

No Congressional Intent to Cancel

On the same date, that is, more than a year and a half after Biden had assumed office, however, the Department of Justice and Department of Education issued separate legal memoranda finding statutory justification for the massive loan cancellations in the continuing “national emergency” of the pandemic.

Both departments point to the HEROES Act, passed by Congress in 2003 as a response to the attack on the World Trade Center, which eased the student loan burdens of military service members during war, military operations, disaster area, or a “national emergency.” In their memoranda, both departments cite and repudiate a January 2021 memorandum by the deputy general counsel of the Trump Department of Education as it was going out the door that “Congress never intended the HEROES Act as authority for mass cancellation, compromise, discharge, or forgiveness of student loan principal balances, and/or to materially modify repayment amounts or terms.” 

The president and his administration have now decided that by taking “national emergency” out of its military and terrorism context, they can invoke 20-year-old legislation as a justification for a massive and unparalleled executive-ordered federal expenditure. The supposedly relevant provision of the HEROES Act concerns a person who has “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.” But it is more than obvious that there is nothing about the decades-long student loan problem that is a “direct result” of Covid. The HEROES Act contains no universal loan forgiveness. 

Questionable Precedent

As it happens, a decision of the Supreme Court handed down only two months ago is based on the constitutional principles that the Biden administration is attempting to avoid here. In West Virginia v. EPA, by a 6-3 vote, the court overturned an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), citing a rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act, to promulgate new carbon-dioxide emissions standards.

Arguing that the EPA had exceeded its statutory authority under that act, West Virginia and 23 other states sued. The high court found that the suing states had standing because the new rule required them to “more stringently regulate power plant emissions within their borders.” “Under the major questions doctrine,” the court, citing precedents, ruled against the EPA and stated that the court “expect(s) Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” 

In 1952, President Truman, in the face of a threatened strike by steel workers, ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and continue the operation of America’s steel mills in order to protect military operations in Korea. In the landmark case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, the steel industry sued.

The issue was “the extent of presidential power” in Article II of the Constitution. There was neither statutory authority nor constitutional authority, “express” or “implied,” including his power as commander in chief of the Armed Forces, the court held, for the president to do what he had done. The court concluded that “[t]he Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.”

Can Members of Congress Sue?

Since it is their exclusive constitutional authority over legislation and the purse that is at stake, the Senate and House have or ought to have the standing to file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the loan cancellation. In light of the House’s “originat[ing]” authority over “raising Revenue,” it may be more appropriate for the House to do so.

A full house or a committee of Congress has the standing to sue the executive. In Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives, the standing of the House of Representatives to be heard in court concerning a dispute about how the Census Bureau’s plan to conduct the decennial census would affect re-apportionment, the constitutional basis of the makeup of the House, was obvious. (There were statutory bases for standing as well).

In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers (2008), the federal district court in Washington, D.C., upheld the standing of the House Judiciary Committee, acting for the entire House, in a dispute with former White House counsel Harriet Miers who had refused to appear before the committee despite a subpoena.

The question, then, is whether individual members of Congress can sue. There is only one major case. It is recent, and its holding is against such suits. In Raines v. Byrd (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the congressional plaintiffs did not have the standing to sue in federal court because they could pursue their grievances by proposing and enacting relevant new laws.

Congress had just passed the Line Item Veto Act which gave President Bill Clinton the veto over sections of new legislation while enforcing the whole law. A total of six members of Congress from both houses, all of whom voted against the new law, filed suit. The Supreme Court held that the suing members of Congress did not have standing because they had had their chances to oppose the bill with their votes, and “they simply lost that vote.” Their suit claiming a “dilution of institutional legislative power,” was too “abstract.” The court held that they had not suffered the necessary personal injury to their roles as members of Congress to qualify them for standing. 

However, before Raines, prior suits in which individual-member standing was recognized had been handed down by the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia. Two of them concerned challenges to specific presidential acts. In Goldwater v. Carter (1979), the appeals court recognized Sen. Barry Goldwater’s and other individual senators’ standing to sue President Jimmy Carter for unilaterally canceling a mutual defense treaty with China. The court noted that the treaty had already been voted on and passed, and, thus, Carter’s action had nothing to do with any dispute over the language of the treaty. It was a unilateral executive act. Therefore, the votes of senators had been compromised, and they had standing.

In a dispute involving the presidential pocket-veto and President Richard Nixon’s refusal to recognize a new law enacted just before the Senate recessed, Kennedy v. Sampson, (1974). Sen. Edward Kennedy (along with 19 other senators) sued individually claiming that his vote in favor of the law had been nullified by the executive. The court of appeals found that Kennedy had standing because Nixon had denied him “the effectiveness of his vote as a member of the United States Senate.”

Will the Separation of Powers and the Purse Be Ignored?

The fundamental difference between Biden’s student loan cancellation and Raines is that members of the current Congress had no prior opportunity to vote on loan cancellation. When that fundamental fact is combined with the reality that Biden has not only used the executive power to create legislation but to fund it as well, it is difficult to understand how this is not a “major question” for the Supreme Court to decide.

The creation of an entirely new program, whether found lurking in the HEROES Act law or not, along with the possible expenditure of as much as $1 trillion, is, in the language of Raines, anything but “abstract.”

Two months ago, in West Virginia v. EPA, the court concluded that there was a larger and more important principle than the details of the administrative law of the executive branch. Here, it is the same. It is vastly more important to adjudicate the constitutional separation of powers and Congress’s “commanding” power of the “purse” than to avoid a constitutional confrontation by endorsing the Biden administration’s targeted twisting of the statutory language of the HEROES Act.

There are other considerations, the most important of which may be that this is the biggest open and direct confrontation between the executive and legislative branches since Youngstown, a case that did not even involve the appropriation power. The lack of more available precedents proves how extreme the current situation is.

In addition, we deal here with two opposite interpretations of “official” executive branch legal memoranda concerning the same federal education statute. Per Marbury v. Madison, it is the duty of the high court “to say what the law is” here. Likewise, if the Republicans should win control of the House in November, would they schedule a vote seeking to file a suit on behalf of the whole House when they take power in January?

Like the conflicting interpretations of the statute, there could be a kind of similar contradiction on the constitutional role of the House within a four-month period.


Since retiring as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik has written about legal and constitutional issues on a variety of websites including The Federalist, The Imaginative Conservative, and Law & Liberty.

Source

WATCH – Mob of Juveniles Ransack Store in Philadelphia: ‘It’s a Shame’

WATCH – Mob of Juveniles Ransack Store in Philadelphia: ‘It’s a Shame’

Philadelphia law enforcement is investigating after a mob ransacked a Wawa store Saturday, causing residents alarm.

The incident happened that evening at the business on Roosevelt Boulevard where police said they saw 100 juveniles causing damage inside the building, ABC 6 reported Sunday.

Video footage showed the group walking through the aisles as several items flew through the air. In the distance, a woman was seen standing above everyone else and appeared to be twerking with her arms raised as those below her watched:

The store was left trashed, with items all over the floor, as the group gathered in the parking lot outside.

A resident told ABC 6 she feels hesitant when it comes to shopping at that location, saying, “Sometimes I’m afraid to stop, it’s a shame.”

Former employee Kaitlyn Holtzman also expressed her frustration, telling the outlet, “I was angry. I was very upset because being in the shoes of those employees, I know just how terrifying it is and how like frustrating it is having to clean up after that as well.”

Some Senate conservatives recently urged President Joe Biden (D) to combat the nation’s violent crime wave by deploying every available resource to cities across the country, Breitbart News reported.

In their letter, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) asked Biden to use those resources to fight the high rates of homicides and assaults, the outlet continued:

“Rampant crime is not inevitable — tough law enforcement can stop it,” Blackburn and Hagerty write. “But that requires a commitment to law enforcement.”

Blackburn and Hagerty urge Biden to open federal grant programs through the Justice Department that would go directly to law enforcement units fighting violent crime along with reviving former President Trump’s “Operation Legend” program, which deployed federal officers to cities to assist in violent crime arrests and investigations.

A recent report from the Philadelphia Inquirer indicated approximately eight people on average were shot every day in Democrat-controlled Philadelphia during the time period between Memorial Day and Labor Day this year.

In January, Breitbart News reported the city set an annual homicide record of 562 homicides last year.

Source

NYC: The Purge of Teachers

NYC: The Purge of Teachers

Why would NYC push experienced teachers out of the classroom in the middle of a teacher shortage?

In the middle of a teacher shortage, New York City has axed almost 2000 teachers and classroom aides for not being vaccinated.

It’s madness. And you have to ask yourself why.

The vaccine mandate for teachers took effect from October 29, 2021. Unvaccinated staff were given until September 5, 2022 to be vaccinated or else be “deemed to have voluntarily resigned”.

Voluntarily resigned is, of course, a euphemism for “sacked”.

Booted

As a result, a couple of thousand experienced teachers and aides, all of them perfectly healthy, have been forced out of the education system, with schools unable to replace them.

It makes no sense.

We know that children are at virtually no risk from the virus.

We know that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus.

We also know the shot can cause serious, even deadly, side effects.

So why this intransigent insistence of no jab, no job?

One only conclude that vaccine mandates are now not about science or health. They are about ideological purity.

To put it bluntly, it’s an ideological purge.

We went from “two weeks to flatten the curve” to “show me your papers” in less than 12 months. As one wag noted, “I did Nazi that coming.”

Against Public Health Advice

And Democrat-run states are determined to continue this way, despite advice from the CDC that there is now no reason to treat the vaccinated and unvaccinated differently.

How else to understand the education department’s stance other than that those teachers who refuse the vaccine represent a challenge to authority?

At this point, the vaccine mandate on teachers has nothing to do with the vaccine and everything to do with ensuring that classroom teachers are willing to fall into line and to do what they are told, how they are told.

After all, if they’ll challenge the vaccine, they’ll challenge the curriculum. Therefore they must go.

If I’m wrong, and I may well be, how else do you explain sacking 2,000 experienced teachers in the middle of a teacher shortage for refusing to get a vaccine that stops infection or transmission of what is, for the overwhelming percentage of the population and for almost 100 per cent of young people, a mild flu?

___

Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio.

Thank the Source

NYC: The Purge of Teachers

Why would NYC push experienced teachers out of the classroom in the middle of a teacher shortage?

In the middle of a teacher shortage, New York City has axed almost 2000 teachers and classroom aides for not being vaccinated.

It’s madness. And you have to ask yourself why.

The vaccine mandate for teachers took effect from October 29, 2021. Unvaccinated staff were given until September 5, 2022 to be vaccinated or else be “deemed to have voluntarily resigned”.

Voluntarily resigned is, of course, a euphemism for “sacked”.

Booted

As a result, a couple of thousand experienced teachers and aides, all of them perfectly healthy, have been forced out of the education system, with schools unable to replace them.

It makes no sense.

We know that children are at virtually no risk from the virus.

We know that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus.

We also know the shot can cause serious, even deadly, side effects.

So why this intransigent insistence of no jab, no job?

One only conclude that vaccine mandates are now not about science or health. They are about ideological purity.

To put it bluntly, it’s an ideological purge.

We went from “two weeks to flatten the curve” to “show me your papers” in less than 12 months. As one wag noted, “I did Nazi that coming.”

Against Public Health Advice

And Democrat-run states are determined to continue this way, despite advice from the CDC that there is now no reason to treat the vaccinated and unvaccinated differently.

How else to understand the education department’s stance other than that those teachers who refuse the vaccine represent a challenge to authority?

At this point, the vaccine mandate on teachers has nothing to do with the vaccine and everything to do with ensuring that classroom teachers are willing to fall into line and to do what they are told, how they are told.

After all, if they’ll challenge the vaccine, they’ll challenge the curriculum. Therefore they must go.

If I’m wrong, and I may well be, how else do you explain sacking 2,000 experienced teachers in the middle of a teacher shortage for refusing to get a vaccine that stops infection or transmission of what is, for the overwhelming percentage of the population and for almost 100 per cent of young people, a mild flu?

___

Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio.

Thank the Source

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

Flint, Michigan’s 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 previously reported, during Flint’s Aug. 2 primary, the city hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican election inspectors — in direct violation of a Michigan state statute that requires equal representation of party election inspectors. 

On Sept. 8, Brown, after serving as Flint’s city clerk for 25 years, abruptly announced her resignation effective 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 Neeley told the Flint Beat. “I had no foreknowledge of this occurring this soon.” Because of Brown’s resignation, Neeley reached out to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office for help running the city’s elections. Benson is up for re-election this year, raising questions about the ethics of her involvement in Flint’s 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 you’re running.” 

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

“The pressure we’ve put on the city led to this,” Johnson said. “This is a HUGE win.” 

Regardless of Brown’s resignation, Johnson expects Flint to fully comply with PIME’s 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.

Source

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

Flint, Michigan’s 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 previously reported, during Flint’s Aug. 2 primary, the city hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican election inspectors — in direct violation of a Michigan state statute that requires equal representation of party election inspectors. 

On Sept. 8, Brown, after serving as Flint’s city clerk for 25 years, abruptly announced her resignation effective 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 Neeley told the Flint Beat. “I had no foreknowledge of this occurring this soon.” Because of Brown’s resignation, Neeley reached out to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office for help running the city’s elections. Benson is up for re-election this year, raising questions about the ethics of her involvement in Flint’s 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 you’re running.” 

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

“The pressure we’ve put on the city led to this,” Johnson said. “This is a HUGE win.” 

Regardless of Brown’s resignation, Johnson expects Flint to fully comply with PIME’s 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.

Source

Not Really A Heartbeat, Clump Of Cells, Property Not People — It’s The Same Old Lie

Not Really A Heartbeat, Clump Of Cells, Property Not People — It’s The Same Old Lie

Georgia gubernatorial candidate and election denier Stacey Abrams used an event earlier this week to spread her denial of scientific reality, claiming that babies who have been in the womb for six weeks don’t have a heartbeat, and that the pulse millions of parents rejoice to hear on their childrens’ ultrasounds is actually “a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.” (Note: Even Planned Parenthood admitted a six-week-old unborn baby possessed a “basic beating heart” until the abortion provider scrubbed the line from its website to comply with Abrams’ rhetoric.)

In recent years and culminating in response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, abortion proponents have been more willing to admit that a child in his mother’s womb is still a child, and to advocate for the right to kill him anyway. A worldview that places self-gratification above all moral responsibilities to others can convince its adherents that even child sacrifice is justifiable in service to the idol of self. But maybe Democrats realized that’s not a popular way to win elections because they’re crawling back to the bogus claim that unborn babies aren’t real people.

Where have we heard that bad-faith argument before?

A few years ago, the common talking point was that “it’s just a clump of cells.” While some still try to make that argument, the more women see their babies’ faces, hands and feet, and movements on ultrasound screens — and the more horrific footage emerges of recognizable baby body parts being ripped apart in abortions — the less people buy the argument that unborn babies are static blobs of lifeless matter. It’s also a hard argument for Democrats to make when they support abortion up to the point of birth; you might convince an ignorant person that a baby in the first few weeks of gestation is “just a clump of cells,” but that’s a hard sell about a baby at 38 weeks (or 24, or 15).

At 15 weeks — the gestational age at which a Republican bill currently proposed in the Senate would ban abortions, earning Democrat panic — babies can feel pain, their hearts are “pumping approximately 26 quarts of blood daily,” their skeletons and organs are formed, they can start moving their limbs, and they can taste and hear. Even the pro-abortion corporate media were fawning just Thursday over a study showing that babies in the womb made different facial expressions in reaction to what their mothers ate.

In blatant denial of scientific reality, these arguments used to deny the personhood of unborn babies have another predecessor: the bogus claims that Africans weren’t fully “human” made in an attempt to justify enslaving them.

Proponents of slavery often claimed their slaves were property instead of people, denying their humanity to justify the denial of their rights. In his infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included” in the phrase “all men are created equal,” reflecting the argument that if slaves did not have full personhood, then their lives and rights could be trampled. Slaveowners appealed to hack “science” suggesting that slaves felt pain less or had smaller brains, much like abortion proponents claim unborn babies “don’t really have heartbeats.”

The denial of African slaves’ humanity was a “vicious, obvious lie meant to justify and rationalize horrific violence against human beings whose God-given rights interfere with the conveniences and lifestyles of the ruling regime,” as The Federalist’s Sean Davis put it, a description that exactly describes modern Democrats’ anti-science denial of the unborn’s humanity.

It’s the same old lie. The party that pretends to “represent science” is once again spouting flat-earther claims to excuse taking others’ lives for political and financial profit. And it’s just as evil and wildly untrue as it was before.


Elle Purnell is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her work on Twitter @_etreynolds.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)