Daily Archives: July 27, 2022

The corporate media had a collective meltdown this week after realizing that the Republicans they love to bash and smear are no longer giving members of the press the benefit of the doubt. Much to their dismay, some GOPers are even refusing to engage with or acknowledge journos desperate to write hit pieces.

In one New York Magazine Intelligencer article, headlined Why Republicans Stopped Talking to the Press, David Freedlander complains that former President Donald Trump ushered in a new era of media disdain in GOP politics that encourages actively courting the medias scorn while avoiding anything that may be viewed as consorting with the enemy.

One anonymous GOP adviser explained bluntly, We know reporters always disagreed with the Republican Party, and outlets now are just chasing resistance rage-clicks.

Freedlander, however, rejects those valid concerns and suggests that there is really not much Republicans can say after supporting Donald Trump. (Maybe Freedlander and the New York Timess Bret Stephens, who recently penned a disingenuous article further exposing his contempt for Trump supporters, are friends?)

According to Freedlander and his pal New York Times writer Jeremy Peters, Republicans dont want to have to defend Donald Trump and his falsehoods about the election.

Freedlander notes that most top 24 contenders are media-makers in their own right, hosting their own podcasts or, at minimum, building out robust social-media feeds. Instead of acknowledging thats because conservatives have faced endless political censorship from Big Tech and grave dishonesty from the press, Freedlander says thats because Republicans want to find places where they dont have to face any questions about Trumps election integrity concerns.

Vanity Fair published a similar article on Tuesday whining about the Republican Party of Floridas decision to limit which media outlets were allowed to cover their Sunshine Summit, a conference headlined by one of the most skilled media rejectionists, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

GOP politicians are increasingly shirking sit-down interviews, barring journalists from 2022 events, and skipping debatesan aversion to media scrutiny that could upend how the next presidential election cycle is covered, the subheadline warns.

Vanity Fair, which has had no shame in attacking DeSantis and other Republicans before, clearly published the article with the intent to spark fear about the growing distance between the party and the press. Thats why the headline asks, Will Republicans Shut Out The Press in 2024?

I sure hope Republicans shut out the press, especially if that means red legislators will refuse to cede ground to corrupt actors who have no problems meddling in elections to fulfill their political aims.

After all, history proves that the corporate media is hostile toward the GOP and red voters. When journalists bother to try to talk to Republicans, they are more likely than not acting in bad faith. Why should Republicans, who know the corporate media have a clear left-wing bent, buy into the Democrat-informed narratives peddled by media activists?

Even normal people know the media are not to be trusted. Recent polling suggests Americans confidence in media is at an all-time low. Only 16 percent of Americans claimed to have a great deal/quite a lot of confidence in newspapers. That confidence falls even lower to 11 percent for TV news.

As GOP strategist Dave Carney bluntly put it for Freedlander: No one gives a f-ck what the New York Times writes.

And neither should Republican politicians.

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.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continued here:

Republicans Are Finally Done Obsessing Over The Media. Good. - The Federalist

In a New York Times/Sienna College Research Institute poll this month, only 1 percent of participants said that the most important problem facing the country today is climate change. Twenty percent of those polled, the highest percentage, said that the economy (including jobs and the stock market) was the greatest problem, and 15 percent said that inflation and the cost of living were their greatest concern.

Republicans were the demographic most likely to name the economy as their top priority, at 29 percent, with Hispanics right behind them at 28 percent. In comparison, exactly 0 percent of Hispanics said that climate change was at the top of their list of pressing problems. These numbers grow in significance when you consider that major heat waves had just struck much of the country around the time the poll was conducted.

Ten days after finishing the poll, The New York Times commented on these numbers, displaying some confusion at such low numbers of the publics concern for an issue they describe as widespread and catastrophic. Even among voters under 30, the group thought to be most energized by the issue, the Times reported, that figure was 3 percent.

Their only explanation was that people are distracted from significant issues like climate change by the daily economic issues that eat into their pocketbooks. The Times quoted former Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo from South Florida, saying, In healthier economic times, its easier to focus on issues like this [climate change]. Once people get desperate, all that goes out the window.

Despite spending the entire first half of the article outlining a supposed climate crisis occurring throughout the country, the Times quoted Curbelo noting that these crises are not things that most people face every day, while issues like inflation are readily apparent to anyone who pulls up to the gas pump.

Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College where she fondly excuses the excess amount of coffee she drinks as an occupational hazard.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Originally posted here:

As Dems Go All In On Climate, 1% Of Americans Call It Top Fear - The Federalist

Former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin is reportedly the new permanent co-host of ABCs The View. Since Meghan McCains departure from the show, the network has struggled to find someone to fill the conservative seat, apparently searching for someone who claims to hold conservative values but is willing to abandon and even assail those values for the sake of The Narrative. It seems Farah Griffin finally proved to producers she was up to the task.

When Farah Griffin made her first appearance at the Hot Topics table last October, she began by desperately apologizing for serving in the Trump administration and bent the knee with nervous laughter to every insult her co-hosts threw at her.

She attempted to distance herself from Trump by noting that she was initially working under Vice President Pence. Co-host Sunny Hostin shot back, So youre not working for Darth Vader, but youre a stormtrooper.

Corporate media outlets called the exchange embarrassing for Farah Griffin, and it was, but not for the reasons they assume. Whats embarrassing is disowning your own previously held beliefs, convictions, and careers work in exchange for seal claps, media attention, and the approval of Whoopi Goldberg.

In Farah Griffins subsequent appearances on The View, as well as on CNN and MSNBC, she contradicted her own publicly stated opinions on voter fraud, Jan. 6, Hunter Biden, and even former President Trumps Covid response.

Secondhand embarrassment aside, this isnt so much a loss for conservative media representation or even for Farah Griffin herself. The real mistake here is on ABC producers and their failure to understand their audience and their major ratings problem.

Under Meghan McCains reign in the conservative hot seat, The Views ratings skyrocketed. The New York Times lauded it as the Most Important Political TVShowin America, and appearing as a guest on the show became a must for any politician running for office. Yet, the permanent talking heads and producers cant see where that success was derived.

Even while remaining staunchly anti-Trump, McCain was never bullied into submission by her far-left co-hosts. Of course the heated exchanges and must-see-TV catfights drove ratings, but more than that, McCain represented the opinions of millions of American women who do not see their views shared anywhere else on network television. With McCain gone, and a weak-kneed Trump defector filling her place, whats to keep those women tuning in when they can hear the same earful of leftist talking points from literally every other form of corporate media?

Perhaps now that Farah Griffin has earned her permanent spot (and her paycheck), she can grow a spine without worrying so much about nailing the audition, but I wouldnt hold my breath. For people like Farah Griffin, Mediaite headlines and Twitter seal claps are far more rewarding than the affection of women in Middle America.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

More here:

Alyssa Farah Griffin Gets Conservative 'View' Slot By Trashing Conservatism - The Federalist

Nate Silvers FiveThirtyEight website claims to use statistical analysisto tell compelling stories about elections, politics, sports, science and life and attempts to present itself as a moderate voice, alongside its fellow Disney-owned media properties such as ESPN and ABC News, both of which have endured heavy criticism for erroneous and ideologically driven reporting in recent years. FiveThirtyEights recent abortion article, however, goes a long way toward disabusing readers of the notion that it is an empirical or centrist media outlet.

The inaccurate screed argues that the pro-life movement is intrinsically rooted in racism, even though the modern abortion industry is an outgrowth of blatantly racist and eugenicist thought among early 20th-century progressives. Even more bizarrely, it argues the pro-life movement has ties to replacement theory, an oft-quoted idea in corporate media that the left will politically dominate due to a massive influx of immigrants.

The article, How The Fight To Ban Abortion Is Rooted In The Great Replacement Theory, written by Alex Samuels and her colleague Monica Potts, even openly contradicts its own thesis.

In order to make this tenuous assertion, the article invokes the recent racist mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. The authors note that in the shooters 180-page manifesto, he expressedconcern about the declining birth ratesof white people. Thats because the anti-abortion movement, at its core, has always been aboutupholding white supremacy.

However, the shooter never once mentioned the word abortion, and thats probably for a very obvious reason: Racists understand that legal abortion is very helpful for their twisted cause. Abortion rates for black women are about four times that of white women, and abortion advocates routinely oppose laws designed to prevent abortion based on the sex and race of the child being aborted. Planned Parenthood has 62 percent of its abortion centers strategically placed within two miles of concentrated African American populations.

FiveThirtyEight also launches into a very dubious history lesson: Declining white birth rates, along with the rising eugenics movement a now-discredited pseudoscience focused on the genetic fitness of white Americans were connected to the practice of abortion, and this helped bolster flawed, racist arguments for a total ban of the procedure. FiveThirtyEight makes no attempt to explain how opposition to euthanasia and abortion would lead to flawed, racist arguments for a total ban of abortion, since abortion reduces the black population and euthanasia has historically been a means of targeting minorities and those with disabilities.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, spoke to the KKK and was a proponent of euthanasia and birth control, known for her saying, Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit. In 2020, Planned Parenthood took Margaret Sangers name off a New York City facility, and said the move was the first of many organizational shifts to address Sangers legacy and system of institutional racism.

And while it might be understandable that reporting on an issue as polarizing as abortion would cause reporters to rely on ideologically driven sources, FiveThirtyEight resorts to fringe voices such as the co-founder of the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism.

Finally, in a key paragraph, the authors seem to admit that the premise of their own article is contradictory and incoherent:

Even on its own terms, though, the logic of tying the anti-abortion movement to the racist great replacement theory is deeply convoluted and downright inaccurate. For instance,fewer women are seeking abortions, and women of color particularly those who are Black are more likely than white women to seek an abortion.

This idea that they are writing about the nation, that the fight over abortion rights is somehow tied to great replacement theory theres just no evidence for in what theyve written, Dr. James Sherley, stem cell biologist and associate scholar of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told The Federalist. If you look at all of the causes of deaths for African Americans, that rate is still less than all the deaths due to abortions so abortion is the number one killer of black people in America. That just really flies in the face of this article by FiveThirtyEight.

Its just really a terrible article, he added. Its a random assortment of random observations.

Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College. Mollie Hemingway is editor-in-chief of The Federalist.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more here:

FiveThirtyEight Contradicts Its Own Claim That Pro-Life Movement Is Racist - The Federalist

An Arizona mother who works with refugee families is fighting a state agencys decision to place her on a child neglect no-hire list. Represented by attorneys from Pacific Legal Foundation and the Goldwater Institute, she is asking a state court to give her due process before allowing the agency to blacklist her.

According to the stay motion, while Sarra L. was Thanksgiving shopping in 2020, she let her 7-year-old son and his 5-year-old friend play at a park. She knew the park was safe, and a friend of hers was there. While Sarra was in the store, the friend called and said a police officer was talking with the children.

The officers charges against Sarra two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor were ultimately dropped by prosecutors, the motion said, but the Arizona Department of Child Safety investigated the matter and concluded there was probable cause that Sarra neglected her son. DCS recommended putting Sarras name in the Central Registry.

The Central Registry is essentially a no-hire list, Adi Dynar, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and the lead attorney for Sarras case, told The Federalist. If someones name is on the list, no employer can hire them if, as part of their employment, they have to work with children.

He said this would threaten Sarras job, where she works with refugee families from Eastern Europe, including those affected by the Russia-Ukraine war. Shes working with them, getting them situated, getting them the services they need to rebuild their lives and flourish in America, Dynar said.

If her name appears in the list, then her job is in jeopardy, she cant work with refugees, and ultimately we are all impoverished as a result, he added.

Before she could take the case to court, Dynar said Sarra appealed the DCS decision to an administrative law judge and then to the DCS director, a process he said has inherent constitutional problems. There is no jury trial, Dynar said. There is no cross-examination of witnesses. They do not follow any rules of evidence or any specific rules of procedure that we have come to recognize as necessary for complying with the due process clause.

To add insult to injury, he continued, the standard of proof that is used in these cases is probable cause. Probable cause, according to the stay motion, is equivalent to a form of substantiated suspicion. Dynar said the process also violates the separation of powers in Arizonas Constitution, as executive officials exercise judicial power.

Sarras team filed the stay motion on July 15, asking that the court order DCS not to place her name on the registry or to remove it if the agency already has until the case is resolved.

If Sarra wins, this could affect more than just her case. Her attorneys argue the administrative hearing process itself violates the separation of powers as well as Sarras constitutional rights. If we win that argument in the Court of Appeals in Arizona, we would be able to establish favorable precedent, at least in the state, that is critical of administrative adjudication, Dynar said.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continue reading here:

AZ Mom Fights Due-Process Denial That Would Put Her On No-Hire List - The Federalist

Inflation is at a 40-year high, an economic recession may be just around the corner, the presidents approval rating is plummeting, and the 2022 midterm elections are less than four months away. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?

At least, that must be what the Biden administration is thinking. Why else would a U.S. president launch a thinly veiled get-out-the-vote campaign designed to give the Democrats an electoral advantage?

The presidents plan was outlined in Executive Order 14019, which ultimately directs all federal agencies to do what they can to increase voter registration and turnout, including by working with a select group of third-party organizations approved by the White House. Sounds harmless on its face, until you consider the fact that it is being carried out by political appointees whose job security literally depends on Democrats being reelected in 2022 and 2024, and that the person charged with collecting the plans and leading this effort is President Joe Bidens domestic policy advisor, Susan Rice.

Even more concerning, when pressed for more information about these plans through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the Foundation for Government Accountability, the Biden administration has opted to stay silent. If the plans are harmless, why not share them with Congress and the American people? It makes you wonder what theyre hiding.

But even without the details publicly outlined, its not difficult to see what the executive order hopes to accomplish. By interjecting the might of the federal government and all of its taxpayer-funded offices and resources into the state-run voter registration process, the Biden administration hopes to drive out the Democrat vote in both the midterm elections and for generations to come.

Weve seen a similar scheme once before. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife funneled millions of dollars to state and local election officials for the administration of the 2020 election. And as it turns out, the vast majority of those dollars were spent in localities that ultimately voted for Joe Biden. The not-so-secret attempt to drive out Democrat votes through a targeted distribution of resources was seen as highly unethical. And thanks to a flurry of new laws passed in more than 20 states, it is now also illegal across much of the country. Yet now, these so-called Zuckerbucks have proven to be just a precursor to an even larger scheme: the presidents use of Bidenbucks the use of taxpayer dollars to meet the same end.

Sadly, the scheme is already underway. Several federal agencies have initiated plans to designate their state offices as voting registration agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labors 2,300 American Job Centers. But its imperative that these centers remain non-partisan free from even the appearance of becoming vote mills that churn out political support in exchange for work.

The same should go for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has also announced plans to designate Public Housing Agencies as voting registration agencies. Votes in exchange for benefits should not be the slogan of any federal agency.

There is good news, though. The Biden administrations plans have not gone unnoticed. The Foundation for Government Accountability has filed a lawsuit to compel the U.S. Department of Justice to respond to our initial FOIA requests. Last week, the Federal District Courtordered the DOJto provide us all requested documents required under the FOIA requestbefore the midterm elections.

Also, legislation has recently been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent the Biden administrations plans to take over state-run elections from moving forward. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., would prohibit federal agencies from using federal funding to carry out any plans to comply with the presidents order to use the immense resources of federal agencies and their state offices to carry out an unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort designed to benefit the left.

It will also prohibit agencies from partnering with politically like-minded outside groups hand-selected by Susan Rice to carry out Executive Order 14019. While its unlikely that it would become law before the upcoming election, this legislation is an important step toward ensuring our elections are free, fair, and secured against unconstitutional influence in this case, from the White House itself.

President Biden may be feeling the pressure build as his economic policies have continued to fall flat with the American people, but that does not justify an illegal executive power grab to attempt to keep his party, and himself, in control. And executive branch attempts to systematically affect elections for generations to come must be stopped at both the state and federal level.

Tarren Bragdon is president and CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

The rest is here:

Biden's Illegal Election Hail Mary Might Still Be Intercepted - The Federalist

Ever since the first baby was successfully born of in vitro fertilization in 1978, reproductive technologies have been hailed as a positive innovation designed to address the infertility issues plaguing modern society. What started as experimental solutions for couples who had difficulty conceiving naturally, however, has rapidly turned into a multibillion-dollar global industry that monetizes reproduction for all with little care for bioethics.

Donating eggs or sperm, becoming a surrogate, or serially creating embryos are all scientific marvels, but they take a gamble on the meaning and responsibilities of reproduction, deprive children of humanity, and infringe on natural rights. At a time when being child-free is praised, it is worth celebrating that men and women crave the joys of parenthood. Whats not celebratory are practices that deprive children of parents in very unhelpful ways.

As noted by Them Before Us founder and Federalist contributor Katy Faust on a recent episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, third-party reproduction sacrifices childrens rights and replaces them with the selfish ambition of adults. That driving ideology, Faust said, is present in both abortion, the baby-taking industry, and the baby-making industry that is big fertility.

Both of them determine a childs rights based on whether or not they are wanted. In abortion, if a child is unwanted, you can violate their right to life and force them out of existence. In big fertility, if a child is very wanted, you can violate their right to their mother and father and force them into existence. But in both of these places, the adults are determining whether or not a child is worthy of protection of their rights simply based on what adults want, Faust said. Children are not commodities. They are not objects of rights. They are subjects of rights. Children have rights, and because they are the smallest and most vulnerable among us, they especially need special protection.

In one recent dystopian example of this breach of natural rights, Israel started allowing families, often wannabe grandparents, of fallen soldiers to request sperm be posthumously extracted and used to create children. Oftentimes, Bloomberg reports, Hundreds of women volunteer to help conceive and carry the child in a display of national solidarity and what seems to be a growing preference for a sperm donor who isnt anonymous and whose family will be involved.

The bizarre trend of planned orphanhood is ripe for bioethics criticism and surely wades into uncharted legal territory but is still largely supported by the nations legislative body, which voted in March to allow the practice to continue as long as soldiers agree to it before they enter the service.

Similar situations have already crept into the United States. In 2019, the parents of West Point Cadet Peter Zhu, who died in a skiing accident, petitioned a judge for permission to harvest their sons sperm. The mourning parents overlooked criticisms that welcoming a child from a dead father is not ethical in favor of preserving some piece of our child that might live on.

Speaking of male gametes, approximately 30,000 to 60,000 children who were conceived with donated sperm are born every year in the U.S. A Harvard medical school study found that of the 143 sperm donor children who were surveyed, 62.2 percent felt the exchange of money for donor gametes was wrong. An even higher number, 74 percent, said they often or very often think about the nature of their conception.

Individuals experienced significant distress upon learning about the nature of their conception, the study noted.

Whether children of sperm donors care how they were conceived, they can still run into a myriad of problems such as accidental inbreeding, especially if they are the product of a serial sperm donor.

Without regard for the harms that come with outsourcing reproduction, aspiring grandparents, celebrities, single women looking to fulfill motherly instincts without committing to a long-term relationship or marriage, gay couples, and anyone who wants to avoid the symptoms and bodily changesrequired of carrying a baby have essentially unfettered access to the buying and selling of pregnancy, as long as they can afford it.

Not only does the fertility industry support practices that sideline kids, but they also sustain practices that teeter on the edge of eugenics.

For example, one same-sex couple in California decided to sue an IVF clinic that wrongly implanted a female embryo in their surrogate, who later birthed a healthy baby girl. The men claimed in their lawsuit that they had always wanted a boy and explicitly notified the fertility center that they wanted only male embryos transferred.

Many fertility processes also rely on creating a multitude of embryos and then grading and discarding those that are not deemed suitable, even though those low quality embryos can yield successful pregnancies. Embryos that have met the subjective standards but are not wanted at the moment are frozen and stored possibly to be used, as Bravos Andy Cohen, an unmarried gay man, recently suggested, decades later by family members including the embryos biological siblings.

You know what Im thinking this is crazy but if either of [my kids] cannot have kids, maybe in 20 years theylldefrost their sibling and raise them. Is that a weird thought? Cohen asked.

A Today Show article tried to reassure Cohen that no according to theNational Embryo Donation Center, embryo donation (either for research purposes or to people who desire children) is an option for those who are finished having children. The increasing push from corporate media and elites to normalize such an inherently odd and potentially morally objectionable practice is alarming.

While young men and women in America are committing to sterilization in protest of the U.S. Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson decision, others are selling their bodies and gametes to an industry with little regulation, oversight, regard for childrens rights, or understanding of the benefits of traditional marriage and family.

Reproductive technologies have been around for decades, but as their effects play out in society, ethical issues have already surfaced and will continue to do so. Just because science and technology mean we can do something doesnt mean we should.

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.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the original:

It's Time To Evaluate The Ethics Of Reproductive Technologies - The Federalist

In his latest bid to amass greater control of Canadian society, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is set to move forward with his governments plan to reduce nitrogen emissions by limiting fertilizer use among Canadian farmers.

The revelation came following a Friday meeting between Trudeau and Canadian provincial ministers, where the prime minister unexpectedly announced his decision to cap fertilizer emissions by unilaterally targeting the countrys agricultural sector.

Fertilizer emissions reduction was not even a topic on the agenda of the annual meeting of Federal-Provincial-Territorial ministers of agriculture, a joint Alberta-Saskatchewan government press release reads. Provinces pushed the federal government to discuss this important topic, but were disappointed to learn that the target is already set. The commitment to future consultations are only to determine how to meet the target that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Bibeau have already unilaterally imposed on this industry, not to consult on what is achievable or attainable.

As referenced in the press release, the targets set by the federal government include a bid to reduce absolute levels of [greenhouse gas] emissions arising from fertilizer application by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030, which the Trudeau administration previously announced in December 2020. While Trudeau has not publicly released specific mandates, the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan are blasting the prime minister for advancing the policy.

Were really concerned with this arbitrary goal, said Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit. The Trudeau government has apparently moved on from their attack on the oil and gas industry and set their sights on Saskatchewan farmers.

Alberta Minister of Agriculture Nate Hornerechoed similar sentiments, saying that [t]he world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages and that the Federal government needs to display that they understand this.

We cannot feed the growing world population with a reduction in fertilizer, the two governments added.

Although the Canadian government has previously implied that it wishes to reach the 30 percent reduction target while not compromising crop yields, such a policy prescription would seemingly do just that. According to a 2021 analysis by Fertilizer Canada, Trudeaus short-sighted approach to reducing emissions will result in the need to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use and will have considerable impact on Canadian farmers incomes and livelihoods.

It is estimated that a 30% absolute emission reduction for a farmer with 1000 acres of canola and 1000 acres of wheat, stands to have their profit reduced by approximately $38,000 $40,500/annually, the report estimates. In 2020, Western Canadian farmers planted approximately 20.8 million acres of canola. Using these values, cumulatively farm revenues from canola could be reduced by $396M $441M on an annual basis. Wheat fa[r]mers could experience a reduction of $400M.

Trudeaus brazen targeting of farmers isnt the first time the Canadian prime minister has attempted to utilize government force against everyday workers. Earlier this year, Trudeau employed the Emergencies Act to go after Canadian truckers protesting the federal governments Covid vaccine mandate on the industry and went on to smear the protesters as extremists.

Today in the House, Members of Parliament unanimously condemned the antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia that weve seen on display in Ottawa over the past number of days, hesaidin reference to the protesters. Together, lets keep working to make Canada more inclusive.

The crusade against farmers by power-hungry governments is also not exclusive to Canada. In the Netherlands, government officials have similarly implemented a series of measures to curb fertilizer use in the name of climate change. Such policies have been met with significant pushback by Dutch farmers, who have been engaged in nationwide protests for the past several weeks.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

Canada Is Waging A Climate-Crazed War On Farmers - The Federalist

Last week, Michigans Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed funding for maternity homes, adoption tax credits, and other budget items that assist pregnant women. While post-Dobbs, Whitmer and her fellow Democrats seek to conceal the partys pro-abortion agenda by pushing state courts to institute the extreme abortion regime they demand, in striking from the budget any spending that has a semblance of supporting the choice of life, Whitmer exposes her partys abortion-first position.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey and held in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion, the high court stressed that it was returning the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives. While Republican legislators took heed of the high courts directive proposing, debating, and compromising on bills regulating abortion, Democrats instead flocked to state courts with the hope that activist judges would supplant the will of the people by using their raw judicial power to find a right to abortion in the state constitutiona tactic the pro-abortion left began decades ago in anticipation of the Supreme Court reversing Roe and Casey.

This approach provides Democrats cover to hide behind soundbites such as health care and medical decisions without staking a public position on specific abortion regulations. Kansas provides a veritable case study of how Democrat lawmakers seek refuge behind the battlement constructed by that states Supreme Court out of its 150-plus-year-old constitution.

In 2019, in Hodes and Nauser v. Schmidt, in response to a lawsuit brought by two abortion providers challenging a state law that criminalized dismemberment abortionsin which live fetuses are killed by being ripped apart limb by limbthe Kansas Supreme Court declared for the first time that the states constitution provides a fundamental right to abortion. While several Democrats voted in favor of the ban on second-trimester D&E, or dilation and evacuation, abortions that were at issue in Hodes, when the Kansas legislature voted to amend the state constitution to overturn Hodes and to put the Value Them Both constitutional amendment on the ballot for the citizens of the state to decide, not one Democrat voted in favor of the amendment.

That Kansass supposedly pro-life Democrat lawmakers voted against returning the authority to make laws to regulate abortion to the legislative branch makes no sense, unless they faced demands from the national party to oppose the Value Them Both Amendment. After all, the passage of the Value Them Both Amendment does not institute any specific abortion regulation. All it does is allow the bicameral state legislature to pass such bills as the peoples elected representatives deem appropriate.

While opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment in Kansas by the handful of ostensibly pro-life Democrats is either illogical, hypocritical, or cowardly, the Democrat Partys position makes eminent sense once one realizes abortion extremism is the partys mainstream. And post-Dobbs, the only way to hide that reality from the public and enshrine in the law an abortion regime overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Americans is to make state court justices do the dirty work.

With a vote on Kansass Value Them Both Amendment scheduled for just over two weeks away, on Aug. 2, Democrats talking points confirm that strategy. The constitutional amendment on the Kansas ballot will mandate government control over our private medical decisions and pave the way for a total ban on abortion with no exception for rape, incest or to save the mothers life, PBS reported Ashley All, a spokeswoman for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, complaining. Im grieving for all the pregnant people who cant access care, Dr. Iman Alsaden, the medical director for Planned Parenthood Great Plains, added in an interview with PBS.

The Kansas amendment, however, merely clarifies that there is no state constitutional right to abortion. And while the abortion lobby highlights the possibility that a future Kansas legislature may prohibit abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, or where a mothers life is at risk, they ignore the reality that under Hodes interpretation of the states constitution, Kansass Supreme Court has dictated an extreme leftist regime of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason and with taxpayer funding, and with no waiting periods or parental notification. Democrats will have achieved that end without needing to publicly support or vote for such laws, and in turn, will avoid the backlash from voters who believe the state has gone too far.

Conversely, should the constitutional amendment pass, to become law, abortion legislation in Kansas will need to obtain the support of a majority of members of both the House and the Senate, and possibly a super-majority in the event the Democrat governor vetoes the bill. The legislators will be forced to discuss and debate the bill and put their names and their political future behind the righteousness of the proposed abortion regulation. Every election, thereafter, the peoples representatives must face voters and answer for their positions, and if the populace disagrees with the law or finds it too extreme, the remedy lies in the ballot box.

Democrats do not want the people to decide abortion policy, however, because they know the populace does not support their partys extreme abortion-on-demand position, which is why in Kansas, abortion activists pretend a complete abortion ban is on the ballot. Likewise, in Michigan, rather than debate abortion policy and push for legislation to implement the publics preferences, Whitmer has instead turned to the state Supreme Court to institute an extreme abortion regime through the Michigan constitution, while she and her fellow Democrats sidestep debates over limits on abortions.

In fact, in announcing that she had asked the Michigan Supreme Court to expedite her lawsuit seeking a declaration of a state constitutional right to abortion, Whitmer used nearly identical language to that spoken from the abortion lobby in Kansas. While politicians in other states rush to ban abortion, even in instances of rape or incest, Michigan must remain a place where a womans ability to make her own medical decisions with her trusted health care provider is respected, Whitmer said in a press release.

What Whitmer wont tell the public, though, and what she and her fellow Democrats dont want Michiganders to know, is that they want an abortion regime that permits abortion on demand for any reason until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayers. And that is precisely what will be installed on the populace if the Michigan Supreme Court finds a right to abortion in the state constitution. Further, by using the Michigan Supreme Court to achieve this end, rather than the legislative process, Democrats can avoid the extremist label.

But while Whitmers rhetoric and her use of the judicial system to achieve her ends may mask Democrats intent, her line-item vetoes in last weeks 2022-2023 budget make clear where the party stands on abortion, even if she prefers the courts provide the bottom line: It is not about choice or helping women; it is about abortion first.

Whitmers stark strike-out from the budget of funds designed to help women choose life or to aid women who have chosen life says it all. The budget items she struck went much beyond assistance to pregnancy resource centers, which since Dobbs have strangely been in Democrats crosshairs. Whitmer actually struck $4 million allocated for maternity homes that provide safe housing and comprehensive support services without charge for pregnant women who are without a safe home and in need.

Whitmers line-item vetoes likewise exposed the revolting truth that Democrats prefer abortion to adoption. Here, the Democrat governor struck $2 million in tax credits to adoptive parents and $10 million designed to provide factual information to pregnant women about adoption as an alternative to abortion, including the birth mothers ability to establish a pre-birth plan.

No amount of political posturing can overcome the reality seen in the black lines Whitmer used to cross out care for women and their children. And hide as they might behind activist judges, that budget tells the world Whitmer and her fellow Democrats dont value women, or choice, or health care. They value abortion.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

Pro-Abortion Whitmer Slashed Maternity Care From State Budget - The Federalist

Surrounding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, activists have unleashed a wave of attacks against more than 100 pro-life pregnancy centers, churches, and nonprofit groups nationwide.

Now, as Kansas voters head to the polls on Aug. 2 to vote on a pro-life amendment to their state constitution, that bitterness and disruption have reached even usually peaceful parts of the country.

Over the past month, Joel Richardson, who lives in Overland Park near Kansas City with his wife and five children, has said hes had nine Vote Yes signs vandalized or stolen from his front yard.

This is the first time Ive ever put up any political yard sign since living in Kansas for the past five years, he said in a phone interview. With an issue this important, theres power in publicly making a stand. It shows your neighbors who have a similar mindset that theyre not alone.

Recent news reports and social posts confirm that at least dozens of Vote Yes signs have been destroyed, spray-painted, or stolen. We have always respected the First Amendment and peaceful protests, said Mackenzie Haddix, spokeswoman for Value Them Both Coalition, in a statement. Unfortunately,our supporters have experienced aggressive actions from opponents of the amendment who are clearly misinformed about what this will mean for Kansas.

In the suburbs of Johnson County, part of the growing Kansas City metro area, Richardson tweeted on June 26 as he put up a Vote Yes sign.Vandals soon struck.

But he had two sources to get more signs as needed: local adoption agency Zoes House and Trinity House, a nearby Catholic bookstore. Im a son of the Reformation, said Richardson, an itinerant minister and author. But I absolutely celebrate the Roman Catholic Church and their faithful members strong stance in defense of justice for the innocent.

When the first sign was stolen, the second and third were reinforced with rebar rods and packing tape. And by signs four and five, Richardson and his family were keeping closer watch.

I covered a few signs with lithium grease to make them super slippery, he said. They had to work hard to get them off. but they still removed those. Most often, they would just stomp on it to destroy it.

Richardsons frustration grew at this pattern of crime. I could easily affix razor blades to a yard sign. But then if they came into my yard, tried to steal my sign, and got hurt, they could sue me. So the homeowner is really in many ways at a loss.

Last week, he caught the latest act of vandalism on video.

On July 17, he posted that video on neighborhood-based social platform Nextdoor. I was very polite about it, he said of his post. It stated in part: If the girls look familiar, maybe at least talk to them. The good news is the elections will be over soon.

The post generated a few dozen comments, most from apparent adults who endorsed the property damage. One Nextdoor neighbor wrote: Good on them. Theyre standing up for their rights. Human rights should always be more important than property rights.

However, within 72 hours, Richardson said, a moderator emailed him about taking down the video. Nextdoor staff removed your content because we determined that it was a violation of our Community Guidelines, an email provided by Richardson read. Nextdoor is not a place to publicly shame your neighbors. However, he noticed comments in support of the vandalism remained.

Despite pushback, Richardson said he saw the humor in the drama and wasnt trying to hurt or be cruel to anyone. As intense and emotional as this issue is, I still am a big believer in having fun with it. Lets all lighten up a little bit. By this time, his 11-year-old was in on the escapade.

In addition to the tags, now Richardson needed to coat the sign with something stronger than grease. He hit on glue traps used to catch spiders. I went on Amazon and found you can get big rolls of this rat trap glue for cheap.

In the dead of night, a neighbor took the bait.

Richardsons iPhone tracking the tags led him to a house less than a mile away. He parked and his iPhone began to beep as he approached a car in the driveaway. The trunk was ajar, with metal rods sticking out. Soon he could tell he wasnt the only victim of theft.

Richardson, exasperated after weeks of vandalism, called the cops. When local police officers knocked at the alleged vandals door, Richardson said, the 22-year-old young man, clearly upset, knelt down and placed his hands on his head. Richardson asked the officer about working out a neighborly arrangement rather than pressing charges.

Richardson approached the young man and his grandfather. Listen, I dont care if you disagree with my political stance, he said. Millions of people have died for our right to the freedom of speech, our freedom of opinion, and our right to vote. You dont come into someones yard and try to take that. Thats not right.

The alleged vandal was apologetic, according to Richardson, and the two had a short dialogue about the issues. Richardson also wanted to know if the rat trap glue he used really worked.I put that stuff all over the signs, he said. The young man that stole the two signs, he said it was very effective and actually ruined his clothes.

As the vote on Aug. 2 nears, further disruptions are expected. Haddix said Value Them Both will continue to represent the pro-life cause through peaceful and persistent calls to Kansans to value both women and babies.

For Richardson, his Value Them Both yard sign stands again. Some would question why he didnt insist the rule of law be enforced. Was that apology realwith officers standing nearby?

Sure, its frustrating to have multiple people steal my property, said Richardson. But I didnt want to contribute to a cascading snowball of polarization and hatred in our country. Instead, we had a face-to-face conversation where he heard my heart, and I learned a little bit of his story.

The minister added: The Bible says, Mercy triumphs over judgment. And I hope that little human interaction will impact him more than if I just pressed charges.

With five abortion-related state ballot initiatives to be decided this year, the summer of rage could extend into fall in several states. Richardson views the pro-life cause as rooted in ethics.

In the hierarchy of ethical issues, nothing takes greater precedence than wholesale slaughter of the most innocent little lambs the universe has to offer.

Josh Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy for several media outlets including The Stream. His articles have appeared in Christianity Today, Religion & Politics, Faithfully Magazine, Religion News Service, and Providence Magazine. A graduate of the University of Colorado, he previously worked on staff at The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family. Josh and his wife live in the Washington, D.C. area with their two children.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

The rest is here:

The MacGyver Guide To Protecting Your Pro-Life Yard Signs - The Federalist