 The “Trump Effect” Is the Republicans’ Only Hope By Cliff Kincaid – September 27, 2020 The Wall Street Journal column, “Colorado’s Cory Gardner Struggles to Survive the Trump Effect,” tries to pin the blame on the president for the Republican Senator in Colorado consistently running behind his opponent in his race for reelection. The author, Jillian Kay Melchior (above), never once mentions that Gardner has been a booster of Colorado’s lethal dope industry and is losing conservative support because of it. Recognizing that he is losing conservative votes, Gardner has now come out in favor of a quick vote on President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. “He Found His Spine,” proclaimed the conservative website Big League Politics. Senator Lindsey Graham, often labeled a RINO (Republican in Name Only), is also in jeopardy. He is reportedly leading Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison in the South Carolina Senate race by only one point, 46-45 percent. The explanation is Graham’s weak conservative credentials. Morning Consult finds that “While Trump has support from 93 percent of Republicans, Graham has support from 84 percent in the same poll -- making him one of the worst-performing GOP incumbents up for re-election this cycle among voters from his own party.” But the problem is not confined to Gardner and Graham. Other Republicans in Senate contests polling behind Trump are Joni Ernst in Iowa, Steve Daines in Montana, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, and Martha McSally in Arizona. Contrary to what the Journal’s Melchior says, the “Trump Effect” helps candidates. In her column on Gardner, published before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, the Journal’s Melchior wrote that “Mr. Trump, who lost Colorado by five points, has alienated many suburban women and independents,” but Gardner has alienated conservatives opposed to Colorado becoming the headquarters of national marijuana drug trafficking. Gardner has been in the back pocket of the dope business, earning him the label of “pot whore.” On Facebook, the Melchior column was described as documenting how “Trump’s unpopularity is dragging down his [Gardner’s] re-election effort…” This is nonsense. Gardner is losing not because of Trump but because he, too, is a Republican in Name Only (RINO) taking the “progressive” line on legalization of dope, making him indistinguishable from his Democratic Party opponent, former Governor John Hickenlooper. Ignoring all of this, she claims that Gardner “is a good candidate and an incumbent with a solid track record” and that “His struggle shows the peril of being a swing-state Republican in the age of Trump.” His problems are of his own making and have nothing to do with Trump. No Republican in good conscience could vote for him. Some might do so, only to say they voted against the Democrat, but Gardner is not a “common sense conservative,” as he likes to describe himself. Common sense does not drive somebody to be a shill for what is now being called “Big Marijuana.” It is Big Tobacco with the replacement of nicotine by THC’s mind-altering qualities. Jillian Kay Melchior, an editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal, was a graduate of Hillsdale College and worked for several conservative publications and organizations. But she ignores the social issues that motivate many voters. Dozens of new anti-drug groups have emerged in recent years. One of them, Smart Colorado, reports, “Since Colorado voters legalized recreational marijuana with Amendment 64 in 2012, Colorado’s youth have served as guinea pigs in a risky experiment,” and that recent data show that “Colorado now ranks first in the nation for past month marijuana use by those 12-17 years old…” The group warns, “We never foresaw how aggressive and powerful the financial interests behind this new billion-dollar industry would become.” Yet, Gardner is happy with this outcome. Attorney David Evans, Senior Counsel to Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL), has called Gardner “a pot whore." Democrats only need to win four seats to take back the majority in the Senate, and Gardner is a likely goner. Tragically, Ms. Melchior isn’t alone is being a source of erroneous information. In his Wall Street Journal column, “GOP Senate Hopefuls Try to Outrun Trump,” GOP “strategist” Karl Rove calls Gardner one of several superior GOP candidates running “energetic, nearly textbook-perfect campaigns.” He, too, ignores Gardner’s debt to the dope lobby. Gardner gave an interview to a stoner publication, Marijuana Moment, and called marijuana legalization a “significant success.” Here’s what their “success” looks like, according to the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) program:
The argument was that legal dope would replace black market activity. But an investigation by public broadcasting found strong evidence of Colorado marijuana products “being exported to other states,” with law enforcement trying “to keep up with the burgeoning black market.” If Gardner and the RINOS win, it’s because Trump will pull them across the finish line after they decided to vote for Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The “Trump Effect” is their only hope.
0 Comments
 Should the Nation Mourn Ginsburg? By Cliff Kincaid – September 24, 2020 The New York Times headline, “As Nation Mourns Ginsburg, Trump Vows Nomination,” has two distortions. First, while many people are sorry to see her passing, the expression of deep sorrow is not something pro-life people would feel about someone whose rulings denied the humanity of the unborn. Second, the Times’ contrast of the “mourning” for Ginsburg with Trump’s vow to nominate a successor is designed to convey the notion that Trump is hard-hearted. But one could argue that “women's rights,” as taken to an extreme by Ginsburg and other feminists, has been used to sanction the deliberate and savage murder of a human being. Trump issued a “Proclamation on the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg” and visited the Supreme Court to pay respects. But Senator Jesse Helms called her “callous” toward the unborn when she was up for a confirmation vote in 1993. His warning wasn’t taken seriously by most fellow Senators. Indeed, he was one of only three to vote against her confirmation. Since then, 30 million abortions have taken place, making a total of more than 60 million since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Ginsburg, known as RBG, is being promoted by the Times as a cult figure, as a result of fighting sexist bias when she was on her career path. She did achieve her dream. The problem is that she denied the American dream to millions of Americans. Many cannot excuse or forgive her. In her book, The Supremacists, Phyllis Schlafly noted that Ginsburg even endorsed funding of abortions as a constitutional right. That was too extreme for the Supreme Court, which rejected that idea in the 1980 decision, Harris v. McRae. A major tragedy in the career of Ginsburg is her failure to understand the religious principles that she claimed to be following. Liberal Fox News commentator Leslie Marshall said that Ginsburg, who was Jewish, “died on one of the holiest days in Judaism, Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year. One of the themes of the holiday suggests that very righteous people would die at the end of the year because they were needed until the very end.” But Thomas Jacobson of the Global Life Campaign notes that while Ginsburg quoted the Torah on the duty to do justice, she contradicted the Torah by supporting “the innocent bloodshed of babies in the womb, violating the justice requirements of the Law of God and the U.S. Constitution.” He added, “In God’s eyes, our greatest national sin may be the innocent bloodshed of more than 61.3 million babies. Can you imagine standing before the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge of the world and being held to account in part for that? It is our prayer that she did repent before her death, and received mercy and forgiveness from Jesus Christ.” Randy Engel, the traditionalist Catholic writer and founder and director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, said, “One can always pray for her immortal soul and wish her the same merciful judgement that we all desire from God at our own death. However, I believe that judgement will likely be tempered by the ritual lack of mercy she showed to the millions of unborn children who met their untimely death under Roe v. Wade which Ginsburg faithfully worshipped.” Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, of course, won’t be commenting directly on the Roe v. Wade decision which led to their deaths. The ruling will be treated as a “precedent” of the Court that a judge must address objectively. Yet, a recorded conversation with possible Trump nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett about raising a family and adopting children makes the pro-life case. “What greater thing can you do than raise children?” she says. “That’s where you have your greatest impact in the world.” A campaign has already been started to portray Barrett as a religious zealot with too many children and too devoted to “Catholic values.” As if that wasn’t enough, the media have “discovered” she belongs to a Christian group, and this has now become a “scandal.” While commentators praise Ginsburg for her Jewish faith, Christian judges like Barrett, a Notre Dame Law School alumna and member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002, are being opposed for having pro-life tendencies and favoring adoption over abortion. Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois, goes further, asking, “Has Barrett taken any kind of pledge that’s relevant to her being on the Court? She is being positioned for the Supreme Court to do a job and overturning Roe v. Wade will be part of it.” He says that when he interviewed with Notre Dame Law School, which describes itself as the nation’s oldest Roman Catholic law school, he was told by the dean that law professors took a required pledge that they had to conduct themselves consistent with Catholic values, “which I took to mean I would not teach, write or advocate in favor of abortion rights.” But even belonging to a pro-life group is grounds for suspicion. In 2018, Senator Kamala Harris, now the Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee, questioned whether Brian C. Buescher should be seated as a federal district judge because he was a member of the pro-life Catholic group the Knights of Columbus. (He was confirmed 51-40). “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the Catholic Catechism declares. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” Harris’ running mate, Joseph Biden, claims to be Catholic but was denied communion at a Catholic church in South Carolina over his pro-abortion stance. The 2020 Democratic Party platform declares they believe in “safe and legal abortion” and full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It was founded by Margaret Sanger, a revolutionary socialist and anti-Christian activist who favored government programs to eliminate what she called “human weeds.” Father James Altman, pastor of St. James the Less Catholic Church in La Crosse, Wisconsin, comments, “You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period. Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches. So just stop pretending that you're Catholic and vote Democrat. Repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell.” The Altman video, in which he seems to suggest that Catholics who vote Democrat will go to hell, has gone viral. His popularity with traditional Catholics suggests that attacks on Barrett’s Catholic faith, if she is the nominee, may backfire and drive more Catholics who take their faith seriously into the arms of President Trump.
Speaker Pelosi Announces Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Lie in State in National Statuary Hall of the U.S. CapitolSEPTEMBER 21, 2020
PRESS RELEASE Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in state in National Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol on Friday, September 25, 2020. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated for the United States Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton on June 14, 1993 and took her seat on August 10, 1993. Ginsburg first drew national attention for her work successfully litigating sex discrimination cases in the 1970s. As an Associate Justice for more than 27 years, Ginsburg was a leading voice for equality on the Court and across the country. As Speaker Pelosi said after her passing, “Justice Ginsburg embodied justice, brilliance and goodness, and her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who sacrifice and strive to build a better future for our children. Every family in America benefited from her brilliant legacy and courage. Her opinions have unequivocally cemented the precedent that all men and women are created equal.” A formal ceremony will be held Friday morning. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ceremony will be open to invited guests only. Additional details will be announced at a later date. Justice Department Awards Nearly $101 Million to Combat Human Trafficking
The Department of Justice today announced it has awarded nearly $101 million, through the department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in funding to combat human trafficking and provide vital services to trafficking victims throughout the United States. “The scourge of human trafficking is the modern-day equivalent of slavery, brutally depriving victims of basic human rights and essential physical needs as it erodes their sense of dignity and self-worth,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “The Department of Justice is relentless in its fight against the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. Working with state and local law enforcement and community victim service providers, we will continue to bring these criminals to justice and deliver critical aid to survivors.” Operation Safety Net Concludes 35 Missing Children Recovered & Permanent Unit Established in Northern Ohio Cleveland, OH – United States Marshal Pete Elliott, Police Chief Calvin Williams, Sheriff David Schilling, East Cleveland Police Chief Scott Gardner, and Newburgh Heights Police Chief John Majoy announce the recovery of 35 children during of Operation Safety Net. The U.S. Marshals Service has been working with its state and local partners over the past month to locate and recover missing juveniles from the Cuyahoga County area. 35 missing and endangered children, between the ages of 13 and 18, were recovered during the operation. A little more than 20% were tied to human trafficking cases and those cases were referred to the Human Trafficking Task Force in Cuyahoga County. Of the 40 missing cases referred to the Marshals Task Force only 5 cases remain open. Members of the task force and its local partners will continue to work over the next several weeks to bring these 5 remaining children and other children to safety. Chief John Majoy of Newburg Heights stated “We are proud to assist in Operation Safety Net and I commend the United States Marshals Service for their hard work and dedication toward locating these children. Many times, they do not know they are a victim and this operation offers hope, freedom and safety they would not otherwise have. This is a fine example of local, state and federal partners all working together for a notable cause. Together we can all make a difference.” Based on the results of this operation The United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio has now created a permanent Missing Child Unit throughout the 40 counites of Northern Ohio to focus on those missing, abused, neglected and trafficked juveniles. U.S. Marshal Pete Elliott stated, “This was new unchartered territory and the first time we conducted an operation like this. I am very proud of our law enforcement, community and media partners who worked tirelessly to bring our missing and most vulnerable children to safety. The establishment of a permanent unit in Northern Ohio will ensure that our most vulnerable missing children will continue to be found and brought to safety.” Children were located and recovered in Cleveland, Euclid, Akron, Mansfield, Columbus, Miami, Florida and other cities throughout Ohio. Adam Jacobs, Ph.D President of Bellefaire added, “The mission of Bellefaire JCB is to help those children and youth who are at the greatest risk. Missing youth are among those who are the most vulnerable. Working with the U.S. Marshal’s Office to find and care for missing children, who are so often victims of poverty, abuse and sex trafficking, is just one of the many ways Bellefaire works with our community to fulfill its mission. The Missing Child Unit of the U.S. Marshals Service will continue to ask for support from the community in locating these 5 remaining missing kids. Please call the U.S. Marshals at 1-866-492-6833 if you have any information about their location. Tips can also be submitted using USMS Tips.  Make Unborn Babies Great Again By Cliff Kincaid – September 21, 2020 President Trump said on Monday that he would nominate a justice with “high moral values.” That means someone who believes in the humanity of the innocent unborn. That means someone who is the exact opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the fundamental issue of our time. There was a time when slavery was the moral issue of our time. The U.S. fought a civil war over ending slavery, even though the Marxist Black Lives Matter is trying to keep a racial civil war going for partisan political purposes. But BLM has moved on, too. This Marxist group wants to destroy the nuclear family, a process that accelerated with Roe v. Wade in 1973 and was upheld by Ginsburg on several occasions. That decision has left 60 million dead. This is a form of slavery that has made unborn babies into the property of others, subject to whims about when and if they live, or die. “Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves,” President Ronald Reagan said. “Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide.” “While we did not agree with many of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views about the Constitution or the judicial function, we never doubted her industry, dedication, gumption, civility, or patriotism,” said the “conservative” editors of National Review. But it wasn’t patriotic to favor slavery and it is not patriotic to favor the genocide of the unborn. Being a woman with children and grandchildren, Ginsburg had a special responsibility to recognize and uplift the function of motherhood. Instead, she presided over the buildup of the machinery of death, otherwise known as the abortion industry. The financial power of this industry is what drives the modern Democratic Party and the opposition to Trump. Stephan Richter, Editor-in-Chief of the Globalist, quoted Ginsburg as saying, “My heritage as a Jew and my occupation as a judge fit together symmetrically. The demand for justice runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.” He commented, “No single Jew in the US in recent decades spoke so eloquently -- and did so much to promote equality for all Americans as she did.” She didn’t believe in equal rights under the law for the innocent unborn. She was so pro-abortion that even during her confirmation hearings she refused to recognize the humanity of the unborn. For that reason, Senator Jesse Helms called her “callous.” But he was one of only three Senators to vote against her. Since that time, 30 million innocent babies – out of that total of 60 million – have died, some through partial birth abortion. In this procedure, the skull is crushed or a vacuum issued to remove and empty the brain. Millionaire abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was subsequently convicted on murder charges and sentenced to life in prison, would slit the spinal cords of babies he deliberately aborted and kill them outside the womb. Ginsburg was an example to young women, and a very bad example. She established a legal career that brought fame and fortune to herself but led women to believe that they had property rights over the unborn babies within them, and that they alone could decide their fate. Now we face the prospect of some Republican Senators, in particular Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, opposing a quick vote on Ginsburg’s successor. This is what happens when women are conditioned to believe that unborn human beings are to be sacrificed on the demonic altar of abortion on demand. We can only hope they watch Abby Johnson’s remarks at the Republican National Convention, regarding how she left Planned Parenthood and became a pro-life activist. She now runs the group, “And Then There Were None,” to get people out of the abortion business. The movie “Unplanned” tells her story. Women in particular should be in the forefront of the motherhood movement, dedicated to the proposition that all lives matter and all lives are created equal. But the radical feminism that can be found in the writings of Ginsburg has been transformed into a cult following over a women’s so-called “right” to control her own body even when that “right” affects another body and the life of another human being. It is a sickness, reminiscent of a form of child sacrifice common during the pagan era of Moloch worship. The Democratic National Convention of 2016 actually featured a woman boasting of her abortion. The crowd cheered. This is the modern-day Cult of Moloch. Democrats for Life took out a full-page ad in the New York Times on Sunday “challenging the party’s extreme drift on abortion.” It took the form of a letter to the Democratic National Committee signed by more than 100 current and former elected Democrats urging Joe Biden and the Party to moderate its position on abortion. Faced with the overwhelming evidence that abortion is a crime against humanity, literally, that has cost the lives of 1 billion people, the “conservatives” at National Review publish pablum about Ginsburg’s “patriotism” and others speak of her “values.” We are told repeatedly that she was a friend of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Let’s hope Scalia tried to educate Ginsburg about what real “values” mean. He had an obligation to do so. When the Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, he said we were experiencing a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. Similar to the abortion ruling, Scalia said this was not only the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he said. The Court has been destroying the Christian foundations of our culture. And now, with President Trump promising a nominee guided by “moral values,” the left-wing legal and media establishment is crying foul and some are worried that real progress toward equal rights under the law can truly be made. Trump said on Monday that his nominee would “abide by the Constitution” and she should be a “good person” with “very, very high moral values.” Trump has made some serious mistakes in his presidency, certainly in the area of personnel decisions, but it looks like he is on the right track with his forthcoming Supreme Court nominee. People are motivated. For Christians, the yard signs and banners, “Jesus is Pro-Life,” and “Unborn Lives Matter, “are increasingly popular. Another popular slogan, borrowed from one of the president’s signature lines, is, “Make Unborn Babies Great Again.” *Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org  Bad Advice on Ginsburg from “Conservative” Andrew McCarthy By Cliff Kincaid - September 20, 2020 The “conservative” who vouched for the honesty and professionalism of Russia-gate prosecutor Robert Mueller has recommended that President Trump NOT appoint a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election. Fortunately, Trump is ignoring the advice from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. In a piece for National Review and Fox News, McCarthy called on Trump to refrain from nominating a replacement and instead use the vacancy as an issue in his campaign for president. He said “…the fact that the president has the power to name a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and that Republicans have a majority to get the nomination approved does not necessarily mean that that’s the smart play.” McCarthy was trying to play the role of “smart” guy – smarter than Trump. It wasn’t convincing. Trump has wisely rejected this approach, and indicates he will nominate a replacement in the next few days. McCarthy is the writer who said Robert Mueller was a fine choice as Russia-gate prosecutor. He said, “Bob Mueller is a widely respected former prosecutor, U.S. attorney, high-ranking Justice Department official, and FBI director. He is highly regarded by both parties…He is a straight shooter, by the book, and studiously devoid of flash.” How did that turn out? McCarthy later changed course, admitting Mueller’s probe was political and designed to destroy Trump. In fact, McCarthy wrote a book about the bad job Mueller did. McCarthy was wrong about Mueller and he’s wrong about replacing Ginsburg. He is a weak and timid advocate for conservative values. McCarthy wagered “that a determined Republican effort to replace Ginsburg in the coming weeks would increase the chance that Biden defeats Trump, and that Democrats take the Senate while holding the House. If that happens, Democrats will repeal the filibuster, add four to six seats to the Supreme Court, and pack it with liberal ideologues. Whatever benefit will have been achieved by confirming a Trump nominee will be overwhelmed.” He argued that, “The best play, particularly if Republicans lack the Senate votes they need anyway, would be to use the vacancy as a core issue in the 2020 campaign.” It’s hard to know if Republicans have the votes to confirm a replacement. They have a 53-47 margin. If they lose some Republicans, perhaps some Democrats will come over to their side. If they fail, at least they’ve tried. If they fail, Republican voters will know that Trump tried and that he was betrayed. But at least Trump would have tried, and this is the course he’s chosen. That means he will nominate a replacement and we will have a hearing in which the real “legacy” of abortion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be exposed for all to see. This is more bad advice from Andrew McCarthy, a major writer for conservative publications and a regular on Fox News. He has steered us down the wrong path before. It appears that after he wrote this column, things changed, and it was updated. It now ends with this: “For now, President Trump is signaling (by tweet) that he intends in short order to announce a nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg’s passing, and that he will push for Senate consideration. There is a good chance that he won’t get Senate consideration before the election . . . but that the nomination of a solid prospective justice, and the inevitable comparison of the kinds of jurists a Biden administration would appoint, will help the president’s reelection bid.” So suddenly McCarthy changes from advising Trump to wait on a nomination to admitting that a replacement would “help” the president. This will have to go down as a major flip-flop in the history of policy reversals. It was “emended,” which means to make corrections and clarifications. What happened is that McCarthy was trying to guide the process and was completely ignored, so he changed gears. Now we will be facing an endless series of articles about why Trump should have waited, and why his nominee may go down to defeat anyway. But by making this an issue of right to life versus the culture of death, Trump will win no matter what. It is a fight that has to take place. With more than 60 million abortions already in America since Roe v. Wade in 1973, Americas needs a “reckoning” on the matter of the meaning of life. All lives matter. This is a real social justice issue. The death of Ginsburg has made the sanctity of life into THE issue of the 2020 presidential campaign. Trump has wisely seized it. Here, too, McCarthy misses the point, saying, “For all the Democrats’ hysteria about the purportedly imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade (that never happens), every time a conservative is appointed, the fact is that Republican judicial nominees are forces of stability who favor judicial restraint, enabling Americans to determine democratically how they wish to live.” He neglects to mention that Roe v. Wade terminated the ability of the American people to decide by inserting a “right” to abortion in U.S. law and the Constitution. It’s not “judicial restraint” to keep that “right” where it does not belong. Roe v. Wade must be overturned. In short, there is no “right” to terminate the life of another human being. Why can’t a “conservative” like McCarthy state the obvious? And if human life is in jeopardy, why wait? *Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org  Judge Barrett Is the Answer to Ginsburg’s Legacy of Death By Cliff Kincaid – September 19, 2020 The late Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, opposed the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former general counsel for the ACLU, to the Supreme Court. “Instead of defending the humanity and divinely imparted right to life of pre-born children,” Howard Phillips had warned, “she would simply be another vote for the proposition that our unborn children are less than human and that their lives may be snuffed out without due process of law, and with impunity.” “Today, we fight for her legacy,” says Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. By any objective assessment, a big part of her legacy was continuing abortion on demand, which has now taken 60 million unborn lives since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. "RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws," said Rep. Doug Collins, who is also a military chaplain. But only three Republican Senators voted to oppose the confirmation of this pro-abortion radical back in 1993. The three Senators, in that 96-3 vote, were Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Bob Smith (R-NH). Helms called her “a pleasant, intellectual liberal” but denounced her “outrageously simplistic and callous position” in favor of abortion and against the sanctity of human life. He said she spoke of “no qualification whatsoever” in support of abortion, saying it was a matter of “personal autonomy” and “the right to be let alone and to make basic decisions about one’s life’s course.” Helms went on, “Why…in the name of God did someone not ask, ‘But Mrs. Ginsburg, what about the unborn innocent and helpless child’s right to be left alone, that child who is about to be destroyed because of specious reasoning by people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg?’” Her service to the abortion industry has been ignored by many commentators, including some on Fox News, who want to honor her personal career choices as a feminist. It’s truly terrible that she went through a disease. But she lived a long life and it’s also apparent that she tried to hang on to her seat on the Court for political reasons. She despised Trump. Her long career stands in contrast to the unborn lives, mostly female, that were snuffed out by abortionists in a painful procedure that she personally sanctioned. Worldwide, thanks to Ginsburg and others, the U.S. is third in abortions, behind Russia with 218 million and China with 401 million. Abortion was the leading cause of death in 2019, killing 42 million. The late Phyllis Schlafly noted that Ginsburg was so extreme that she even wanted to write taxpayer funding of abortion into the Constitution. Ginsburg also found another “right” that was in reality nowhere in the Constitution – gay marriage. Helms saw this coming, too, when he said that Ginsburg during her confirmation hearing indicated that she was “likely to uphold the homosexual agenda.” But it was mostly left to conservative leaders like Howard Phillips and Phyllis Schlafly -- not Senate Republicans -- to raise these concerns. Looking at her confirmation hearing, Phyllis Schlafly asked, “How does it happen that a Supreme Court nominee whose only experience in private law practice was seven years as general counsel to the ACLU came to be praised by almost everyone as a ‘moderate’ and a ‘centrist’”? She answered, “My theory is: This just proves how easily men are fooled by a skirt. They deduced that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is ‘moderate’ because she isn’t a loud-mouthed, frizzy-haired, bra-burning, street demonstrator.” The failure to recognize the danger of her nomination and legacy is relevant to what the Senate will do as President Trump nominates a successor. The propaganda barrage against the Republicans for moving ahead with Ginsburg’s replacement has already begun. Phillips and Schlafly have passed away, to be replaced by establishment conservative organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to recommend judicial nominations. Will they endorse a strong pick like Judge Barrett? Or will go for some “moderate” nomination, arguing this is the only way to get someone confirmed? But Amy Coney Barrett was already confirmed by the Senate in a 55-43 vote to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. That means the vetting process can be shortened considerably. What’s more, Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted for her. So did Democrats Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. It’s true that Barrett came under attack by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein because she is a faithful Catholic. But this is the kind of fight Republicans should welcome. It would be interesting to watch the “Catholic” Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden oppose Barrett’s nomination. For conservatives, Barrett is a woman who could serve as a real role model, in direct contrast to the radical feminism and ACLU activism that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will always be remembered for. This fight will offer the public an alternative to the notion that Ginsburg represents American women. The oldest of seven children, Barrett and her husband, Jesse, a former federal prosecutor, have seven children, including two adopted Haitian children. In a story about her life in Louisiana, a local paper noted that “her former New Orleans high school, St. Mary’s Dominican High School, named her their alumna of the year, recognizing Barrett ‘as a woman who instills Christian moral values while urging the practice of ethical behaviors as demonstrated through her dedication to family, public service or career.’” One can anticipate Barrett being attacked by bigots opposed to her Christianity. For example, she will be attacked for her affiliation with People of Praise, described as a “tight-knit group” of conservative Christians. Fox News, which was recently caught censoring a discussion of the role of billionaire George Soros in violent crime, ran a story about how Barrett had been “criticized” for her ties to the group when she was nominated by Trump for the Seventh Circuit. But it was the New York Times that led the criticism of Barrett based on her Christianity. In terms of liberal and left-wing advocacy groups, the so-called Alliance for Justice will lead the opposition. the AFJ has received funding from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation associated with billionaire investor Warren Buffett and his family, and the Open Society Foundations associated with atheist George Soros. Intervening in the unfolding contest, as if he’s the real presidential nominee, former president Barack Hussein Obama says Ginsburg “was a warrior for gender equality -- someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.” But as Howard Phillips testified, her belief in “the extinguishment of innocent unborn human lives, without due process of law,” was not only inconsistent with “the plain language of the Constitution” but with “the revulsion toward abortion which prevailed at the time when our Constitution was drafted and ratified.” The issue is straightforward and simple: does the Constitution protect our God-given right to life? Ginsburg was on the wrong side of this fundamental question. She did not in fact, believe the Constitution applied to “every single American.” After 60 million abortions, it’s time to put human life in perspective in contemplating the legacy of “the legendary RBG.” In terms of killing, abortion makes coronavirus look mild by comparison. The abortion industry has spawned serial killers such as abortionist Kermit Gosnell and is so powerful that pro-life citizen journalists like David Daleiden have been investigated and prosecuted by politicians such as Kamala Harris for exposing the sale of aborted baby parts. Perhaps in the afterlife, Ginsburg will be held accountable for the pain and suffering she inflicted on the innocent unborn. In the meantime, the Court needs a Christian judge willing to be guided by moral values. The choice is clear. *Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org Note:
The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in October 2017. She is a Notre Dame Law School alumna and has taught as a member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002. In contrast to Brett Kavanaugh, who calls Roe v. Wade “settled law” and pandered to pro-abortion Senators, Judge Amy Coney Barrett believes the Roe v. Wade ruling is constitutionally and morally questionable. She was associated with the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life” group and was reportedly on President Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court. But she was shunted aside because Kavanaugh, a Washington insider, was supposedly a conservative nominee who could be easily confirmed. We were told that Barrett, a wife, mother, and professor, would have been tougher to confirm. However, this fight would have offered the public an alternative to the notion that the strident left-wing feminism of former ACLU counsel and current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents American women. Ginsburg became a Supreme Court Justice after being appointed by the serial womanizer Bill Clinton. A former ACLU counsel, she voted to uphold an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan that gave someone 20 points just for being black. She officiated at a gay wedding before ruling for gay marriage, a conflict of interest. She once voted to delay the execution of a convicted killer on the ground that the jury that gave him the death sentence failed to take into consideration charges that he was drunk at the time he committed the murder and had a troubled childhood. Excerpt:
I do, however, urge that Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination be rejected by the Senate on grounds that the standard of judgment she would bring to the Supreme Court on the overriding issue of whether the Constitution protects our God-given right to life, is a wrong standard. Instead of defending the humanity and divinely imparted right to life of pre-born children, she would simply be another vote for the proposition that our unborn children are less than human and that their lives may be snuffed out without due process of law, and with impunity. As a matter of practice and belief, Mrs. Ginsburg has failed to acknowledge or recognize that the first duty of the law is indeed the defense of innocent human life. If it is Mrs. Ginsburg's position—and it does seem to be her view—that the extinguishment of innocent unborn human lives, without due process of law, is not only Constitutionally permissible, but that those who engage in the practice of destroying unborn lives should enjoy Constitutional protection for doing so, she may have a perspective consistent with that held by members of this committee, but it is not one which is consistent with either the plain language of the Constitution or with the revulsion toward abortion which prevailed at the time when our Constitution was drafted and ratified. Complete testimony: TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE NOMINATION OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG TO BE A JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT by Howard Phillips Chairman, The Conservative Caucus 450 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180 Testimony Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, July 21, 1993 "A vote to confirm Mrs. Ginsburg becomes a vote to empower a permanent one-woman Constitutional Convention which never goes out of session." . Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Howard Phillips. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of The Conservative Caucus with respect to the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On Monday evening, June 14, I saw Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy on CNN talking with Larry King about the nomination of Mrs. Ginsburg, whose appointment had been announced earlier that day. Both Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy were effusive in their praise of Mrs. Ginsburg, and Senator Hatch opined that Mrs. Ginsburg would, in all likelihood, be confirmed by a Senate vote of 100 to nothing. It is particularly interesting to note that Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination seems also to be warmly appreciated by Ross Perot who, according to published reports, has for many years benefited from the professional counsel of Mrs. Ginsburg's husband, Professor Martin Ginsburg. Mr. Perot reportedly thought so highly of Professor Ginsburg that in 1986 he contributed $1 million in his honor to Georgetown University. And as Mr. Perot would put it, "isn't it interesting" that Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination occurred only a number of days after Mr. Perot and David Gergen had communed on the island of Bermuda, immediately prior to Mr. Gergen formally joining President Clinton's White House staff? It is indeed a small world. Whenever all one hundred Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, agree on something, it's time for ordinary citizens to wonder why. And when Ross Perot is also part of the "amen chorus", it's time to ask "who owns the franchise on happiness pills?" Are there no issues at controversy which might stir some serious debate? Are there no conflicts in philosophy among the members of the Senate, which is so often characterized "as the world's greatest deliberative body?" Or is it possible that for various reasons, perhaps even including gender or ethnicity, some nominees are beyond substantive criticism. In such instances, it may even be "politically incorrect" to question the worthiness of a nominee who might otherwise be controversial. When we are told that a unanimous vote is in the offing, the American people have the right to ask in all seriousness: "Do all Senators share the same standard of judgment?" Or does it seem politically awkward for some to openly express their privately held concerns by voting against confirmation of a nominee who has benefited from uncritical media coverage. Presuming that standards of judgment do vary, is it not surprising that a virtually unanimous coincidence of conclusion seems to have emerged with respect to this nomination—as it has on certain prior occasions—but not when Judge Bork and Judge Thomas were under consideration? Is it not possible that some views are not being adequately represented in what should be a great debate on this important lifetime appointment? On September 19, 1990, when you accorded me the opportunity to testify in opposition to the nomination of David Souter to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, I asserted that "The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each of us by the Founders of our Nation?" The first duty of the law—and of the civil government established to enforce that law—is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, "This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life." My objections to Justice Souter were premised not only on his legal philosophy, but on his personal history of having facilitated the liberalization of abortion policies at two hospitals for which he was an overseer. I presented facts which established without rebuttal that Mr. Souter's posture of neutrality on this great question of life and death was contradicted by his personal complicity in the performance of many hundreds of abortions at Concord Memorial Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital in New Hampshire. I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Ginsburg has personally caused human lives to be extinguished, as was clearly the case with David Souter when President Bush put his name forward. Nor do I in any other way challenge Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination on grounds of personal character. I do, however, urge that Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination be rejected by the Senate on grounds that the standard of judgment she would bring to the Supreme Court on the overriding issue of whether the Constitution protects our God-given right to life, is a wrong standard. Instead of defending the humanity and divinely imparted right to life of pre-born children, she would simply be another vote for the proposition that our unborn children are less than human and that their lives may be snuffed out without due process of law, and with impunity. As a matter of practice and belief, Mrs. Ginsburg has failed to acknowledge or recognize that the first duty of the law is indeed the defense of innocent human life. If it is Mrs. Ginsburg's position—and it does seem to be her view—that the extinguishment of innocent unborn human lives, without due process of law, is not only Constitutionally permissible, but that those who engage in the practice of destroying unborn lives should enjoy Constitutional protection for doing so, she may have a perspective consistent with that held by members of this committee, but it is not one which is consistent with either the plain language of the Constitution or with the revulsion toward abortion which prevailed at the time when our Constitution was drafted and ratified. While Mrs. Ginsburg has disagreed with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, at no point has she expressed dissatisfaction with the millions of legal abortions which were facilitated by that decision, even though she would have argued that "discrimination" rather than "privacy" was the core issue. By Mrs. Ginsburg's logic, it is unconstitutional discrimination to deny females the opportunity to extinguish any lives which may result from their sexual conduct. Her argument would seem to be with our Creator, inasmuch as he did not equally assign the same childbearing function to males. Consistent with her warped perspective, Mrs. Ginsburg, as a litigator, argued that pregnancy should be treated as a disability rather than as a gift from God. By Mrs. Ginsburg's logic, it is unconstitutional discrimination to deny females the opportunity to extinguish any lives which may result from their sexual conduct. Her argument would seem to be with our Creator, inasmuch as he did not equally assign the same childbearing function to males. Consistent with her warped perspective, Mrs. Ginsburg, as a litigator, argued that pregnancy should be treated as a disability rather than as a gift from God. Indeed, in a 1972 brief, Mrs. Ginsburg argued that "exaltation of woman's unique role in bearing children has, in effect, restrained women from developing their individual talents...and has impelled them to accept a dependent, subordinate status in society."1 Moreover, in 1984, in a speech at the University of North Carolina, Mrs. Ginsburg went so far as to maintain that the government has a legal "duty" to use taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion. The question of personhood, and of the humanity of the pre-born child is at the very heart of the abortion issue—in law, in morals, and in fact. Justice John Paul Stevens expressed his opinion in the 1986 Thornburgh case that "there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being." He admitted that "indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the state legislatures."2 In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court indicated that if the unborn child is a person, the State could not allow abortion, even to save the life of the mother. In fact, in the majority opinion deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, if the "personhood [of the unborn child] is established, [the pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment."3 Although my reasoning is different, I agree with Justice Stevens when he argues that, if the unborn child is recognized as a human person, there is no Constitutional basis to justify Federal protection of abortion anywhere in the United States of America. Indeed, on the contrary, if the pre-born child is, in fact, a human person created in God's image, premeditated abortion is unconstitutional in every one of the fifty states. Justice Stevens bases his reasoning on the Fourteenth Amendment. I base mine on Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which stipulates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...." What distinguishes a republic from a democracy is the fact that, in our republic, due process protections of our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property cannot properly be snuffed out by legislative whim—whether reflected in the vote of a simple majority, a super majority of two-thirds or three-fourths, or even by unanimous vote. Mrs. Ginsburg should be closely questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee concerning whether she believes the unborn child is a human person created in God's image. If this is not her understanding (and it does not seem to be), she should be asked to indicate by what logic she reaches a contrary conclusion. The Constitution of the United States accords this body the right to provide advice and consent with respect to the judicial nominees of the President. As I read the Constitution, you can confirm a nominee for any reason you choose. Moreover, you can reject a nominee for any reason you choose. There are two categories of review which, in every case involving a nominee to our highest court, ought to be part of the confirmation process: One, is the nominee a person whose character, judgment, and ability is compatible with the office? A second factor to be considered in the case of Supreme Court nominees is whether the nominee can reasonably be expected to render judgement in a manner which is faithful to the Constitution, taking care to honor its specific words rather than to rely on interpretations of the Constitution which are clearly inconsistent with its plain meaning. In an article in Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, she wrote that `a too strict jurisprudence of the framers' original intent seems to me unworkable.' It has been reported4 concerning Mrs. Ginsburg that "Several of her writings provide a glimpse into her approach to the Constitution. In an article in Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, she wrote that `a too strict jurisprudence of the framers' original intent seems to me unworkable.' She went on to write that adherence to `our eighteenth century Constitution' is dependent on `change in society's practices, constitutional amendment, and judicial interpretation.' Furthermore, in the Washington University Law Quarterly, she remarked that `boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding' of the Constitution is sometimes necessary."5 "In a speech this March at New York University, Judge Ginsburg advocated using the Supreme Court to enact `social change.'.... "....without taking giant strides...the court, through constitutional adjudication, can reinforce or signal a green light for social change."6 It is not surprising that different people might reach different conclusions about the intent of the Framers. But it is quite another thing for a prospective Justice of the Supreme Court to presume to substitute his or her own opinion for the plain meaning of the original document as lawfully amended. I hope the members of the committee will probe more deeply into Mrs. Ginsburg's present view of the opinion she expressed in that article. If she is unwilling to repudiate it credibly and entirely, then, even aside from her apparent failure to recognize the duty of the state to safeguard innocent humanity, she would seem to have disqualified herself from a position in which she is expected to be a guardian of the Constitution. Otherwise, a vote to confirm Mrs. Ginsburg becomes a vote to empower a permanent one-woman Constitutional Convention which never goes out of session. Indeed, in view of the position taken by Mrs. Ginsburg that it is the duty of Supreme Court justices to disregard the plain words and intentions of the Constitution, it is particularly important that her personal opinions be closely scrutinized. [I]n the Washington University Law Quarterly, she remarked that "boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding" of the Constitution is sometimes necessary As you know, it is the practice of judges below the Supreme Court level to indicate deference to the decisions of the Supreme Court, and to avoid the appearance of competing with the Supreme Court in breaking new Constitutional ground. There are those who argue that Mrs. Ginsburg's performance as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia stands in clear contrast with her role as advocate when she was in private practice and when she functioned as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. But, it would be a mistake to conclude that Mrs. Ginsburg's performance on the Court of Appeals is evidence that she has abandoned her previous perspective or philosophy. The clear problem is that, at least at one point, as a mature adult, a law school graduate and a seasoned attorney, Mrs. Ginsburg expressed the view that it was not only the privilege, but the duty, of Supreme Court Justices to become supreme legislators, supplanting the Founding Fathers in determining the scope and meaning of our organic law, the Constitution of the United States. For this reason, Mrs. Ginsburg's views on virtually every subject which might conceivably be addressed by the Supreme Court are relevant to the consideration of this body. Of course, it is my view that a Supreme Court nominee who sees her role as that of supreme legislator should, ipso facto, be disqualified. But, I have no doubt that there are many in this body who, presuming that they will agree with Mrs. Ginsburg's policy conclusions, intend to set aside any concerns they might have on that score. It is, therefore, the particular obligation of those who might disagree with Mrs. Ginsburg's ideology and policy objectives to either oppose her nomination on the basis of such disagreement, or to henceforth cease their personal professions of conviction on those particular issues—whether they relate to abortion, to homosexuality, or to some other issue where Mrs. Ginsburg's philosophical predilections are a matter of public record. For example, the records of the American Civil Liberties Union disclose that, Mrs. Ginsburg, as a member of the ACLU board, voted to oppose the authority of state governments to preserve laws prohibiting prostitution and homosexuality. She opposed the right of the Federal government to screen out homosexuals from the military, and she even attacked the right of state and local governments to arrest and prosecute adult sex offenders who prey upon the young.7 I would argue that those Senators who believe that states and communities have a right of self-defense against the threats to public health and public morals posed by homosexual conduct should act on their professed concerns by voting against the confirmation of Mrs. Ginsburg. Similarly, if you sincerely believe that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service, you cannot, conscientiously or consistently, vote to confirm Mrs. Ginsburg—because as an unelected Supreme Court legislator she could be expected to regularly vote to overturn not only your opinion but that of your constituents. In the same vein, is it not clear that Mrs. Ginsburg's view of the Fourteenth Amendment would preclude any distinctions being drawn on the basis of gender with respect to the assignment of women to combat? And whether or not Mrs. Ginsburg has expressed, or even developed, a clearly defined view on other issues of Constitutional import, I would suggest that they are worth raising—not just in terms of her philosophical conformity to prevailing opinion, but in seeking to discern her willingness to accord overriding consideration to the original intentions of the Framers. This committee has, over the years, asked Supreme Court nominees questions in detail on a variety of subjects ranging from contraception to bilingual ballots, but it has not probed in depth the views of the nominees on other issues of Constitutional significance. By way of illustration, this year, this Senate is scheduled to conduct hearings on the question of D.C. statehood. What is the opinion of the nominee with respect to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which makes clear that, without Constitutional amendment, the District of Columbia must operate as a Federal city under the jurisdiction of laws approved by the Congress? As a Justice, she would not safeguard the God-given right to life. She would further subvert it. Freed of the constraints which tend to bind lower court judges to the decisions of the Supreme Court, we are obliged, on the record, to assume she would act on her belief that it is necessary to offer interpretations which depart radically from the original meaning of the Constitution. And, rather than protect the Constitutional prerogatives of the Congress to set policy, it seems clear that Mrs. Ginsburg would, at least in some crucial areas, seek to establish herself as a "super-legislator." What is the opinion of the nominee with respect to the Second Amendment? On what basis does she believe that Congress may be authorized to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Would she concede that the people have a Constitutional right to effective self-defense by bearing arms—a right reserved to them under the Ninth Amendment as well as the Second? How does the nominee interpret that provision in Article I, Section 8, which extends to Congress—not to the President, not to the GATT, and not to NAFTA—the authority to "regulate commerce"? The Constitution gives Congress authority "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." Our Federal Reserve system is clearly inconsistent with this Constitutional provision. What is the nominee's conclusion concerning this? The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Do not subsidies to educational and cultural entities inescapably involve the funding of activities which are religious in character? If so, is it not unconstitutional for the Federal government to subsidize such entities, even those which are purportedly secular? Is it not in conflict with the First Amendment to require taxpayers to subsidize a National Endowment for the Arts, which underwrites some highly parochial views concerning the nature of God and man? What is her opinion of the wanton destruction of human life in Waco, Texas and in Ruby Creek, Idaho initiated lawlessly by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and by the United States Department of Justice? Is the nominee willing to literally apply the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states unequivocally that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people? Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Mrs. Ginsburg's nomination should be rejected: As a Justice, she would not safeguard the God-given right to life. She would further subvert it. Freed of the constraints which tend to bind lower court judges to the decisions of the Supreme Court, we are obliged, on the record, to assume she would act on her belief that it is necessary to offer interpretations which depart radically from the original meaning of the Constitution. And, rather than protect the Constitutional prerogatives of the Congress to set policy, it seems clear that Mrs. Ginsburg would, at least in some crucial areas, seek to establish herself as a "super-legislator." I urge you to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson who recognized the danger of allowing members of the judiciary to substitute their own preferences for the clear intention of the Framers of the Constitution. In 1804 he warned that: "...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."8 The members of the Senate in general, and of this committee in particular, have a unique responsibility to preserve not only the prerogatives of the Congress in relation to those of the Judiciary, but of the people with respect to the government. ENDNOTES
Official press release:
Why is Fox News Protecting George Soros? NEWS PROVIDED BY Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights Sept. 18, 2020 NEW YORK, Sept. 18, 2020 /Christian Newswire/ -- Catholic League president Bill Donohue (pictured) comments on Fox News and George Soros:
Why is Fox News protecting George Soros? Is there anyone who doubts that he is one of the biggest contributors to left-wing causes in the nation, if not the biggest? We at the Catholic League know the atheist billionaire as the nation's most generous donor to anti-Catholic causes and organizations. It seems plain that Francis was told by the show's producers (in her earpiece) to cut Gingrich off at the knees. She dutifully obliged. It didn't take long before left-wing media outlets celebrated what happened. The Daily Beast explained that Soros is "often the focus of anti-Semitic tropes." HuffPost said, "In some cases, his name has been used to evoke anti-Semitic tropes." Maybe Soros has been used this way, and if so, that would be despicable. But neither left-wing website provided any examples. Are we to assume, then, that because some bigots have attacked Soros that no one is allowed to cite his role in promoting the left-wing agenda without being called an anti-Semite? Does this justify trying to censor Newt Gingrich? Where did Fox News, the Daily Beast, and HuffPost pick up on the talking point that negative comments about Soros can legitimately be construed as anti-Semitic? From the New York Times. On October 30, 2018, in a front-page story in the New York Times, reporters noted that "baseless claims" that Soros financed illegal border crossings "carry a strong whiff of anti-Semitism." Two days later, November 1, 2018, another front-page story commented that critics of Soros employ "barely coded anti-Semitism." On March 11, 2019, reporters commented that critics of Soros have "skated up to the edge of racism and anti-Semitism with no consequences." Is it anti-Semitic to criticize George Soros? If so, then the ADL, which was founded to combat anti-Semitism, is anti-Semitic. On December 5, 2003, ADL national director Abraham Foxman wrote that Soros blamed the current "upsurge of hatred" directed at Jews on Jews. "Not surprisingly," he wrote, "many Jews are distressed by this tendency, now spilling over to our own community, of blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. That is why I have called Mr. Soros' comments obscene." Would Fox News consider Foxman's remarks anti-Semitic? Last year, Fox News host Neil Cavuto interviewed me about the fire that engulfed Notre Dame Cathedral in France. Here is what I said. "Well, Neil, if it is an accident, it's a monumental tragedy. But forgive me for being suspicious. Just last month, a 17th-century church was set on fire in Paris. We've seen tabernacles knocked down, crosses have been torn down, statues." That was it—Cavuto had a meltdown and cut me off. "We don't know that. So if we can avoid what your suspicions might be." In short, even speculating about the guilty—even though I did not say a word about religious fanatics—was enough to set off the censors in the control room. So much for my free speech. It is not just Big Tech that is stifling the free speech of conservatives. It's executives at Fox News.
CONTACT: 212-371-3191, pr@catholicleague.org Related Links catholicleague.org |
Proudly powered by Weebly