![]() 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
0 Comments
![]() 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, [email protected] Related Links catholicleague.org House Cancels Vote on MORE Act
Media Contact Southern California, Scott Chipman 619 990 7480 [email protected] Northern California, Carla Lowe 916 708 4111 [email protected] Share Tweet ForwardTo those who contacted your representatives and spoke to friends and neighbors THANK YOU! and Keep it up! House Democrats promised their first priority after returning from recess would be to pass the MORE Act. This, in part, would provide payback to their pot drug dealing donors. Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act This bill decriminalizes marijuana. Specifically, it removes marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana. There is a better way than decriminalization of pot - See our position paper HERE Not only was this a ridiculous priority but it would have further endangered public health and safety in a time of national trouble and unrest. The "MORE" Act would have created:
Marijuana is the most dangerous drug in America because what most people think they know about it is wrong. Educate yourself and then educate others. ![]() Obama is the Power Behind the Biden Teleprompter By Cliff Kincaid – September 17, 2020 President Trump was accused of going too slow on a coronavirus response. Now he’s accused of going too fast. “Danger of rushing vaccine” screams the headline over the political gossip publication Axios, designed for elites in the Big Tech industry who don’t read too much but want to know what to say and who to censor. Meanwhile, the liberals in the media are in ecstasy over Barack Hussein’ Obama’s new book, A Promised Land. Mike Allen of Axios says former Obama aides “tell me it's worth the wait” and that “Obama is a graceful, thoughtful writer who cares about the words -- and has two previous bestsellers, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope.” You may remember that Dreams from My Father concealed the identity of Obama’s Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and was reportedly ghost-written by former communist terrorist and professor Bill Ayers. Jack Cashill tells this story in his new book, Unmasking Obama. You may also remember a column I wrote about Mike Allen’s conservative father, the great Gary Allen, who wrote a series of books exposing communist personalities and plots. Mike turned his back on his father’s work and has pursued a journalistic career of pandering to the rich, famous, and powerful. Gary Allen exposed people like Henry Kissinger. Mike Allen idolizes Obama. Cashill’s book Unmasking Obama explains how conservative media and public interest groups worked to uncover and expose a series of Obama scandals, especially his communist ties but also his use of government power against his political enemies. Hence, the subtitle is, “The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency.” The print edition for the new Obama book, including two 16-page photo inserts, is $45. You can get Cashill’s book for about half the price and it will fill in the gaps in public knowledge of America’s first Marxist president. Obama is still important, not only because he’s hawking a new book, but because he’s the power behind the Joe Biden candidacy. While conservatives note the references by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris to a planned “Harris Administration,” a Joe Biden victory will in reality be another Obama Administration, a third term for our 44th president. Anybody who gets Democratic Party email messages about the election understands that Obama is the fundraising hook or ploy in most of them. Biden can’t motivate the left, but Obama can. The latest such message, entitled, “President Obama believes. We do too,” comes from the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. In effect, Obama is raising funds for a presidency that will feature Obama, rather than Biden, as the president, and Harris will continue to function in a subsidiary role. Obama is not going away and is the real power behind the Biden teleprompter. In effect, the race is between Trump and Obama – not “Sleepy Joe.” Biden’s foreign policy advisers once worked for Obama and gave us the carnage in places like Syria. They are agitating for another Middle East war. This is not to say that Kamala Harris doesn’t have a legislative agenda. In fact, she is the sponsor of a Senate marijuana legalization bill, the MORE Act, that has a House counterpart that will be voted on shortly. A coalition of thirty groups has just sent a letter in opposition to the MORE Act to House leadership. Harris says dope brings joy to people. But studies and experts note its addictive qualities. The drug lowers I.Q. and can reduce young people to the level of Antifa thugs acting like cannon fodder for the revolution. Perhaps this is the plan. In any case, expect the major media, including the outlets like Axios, to ignore all of this, and cheer for legalization of the drug. Many probably “enjoy” the drug themselves. Perhaps this addiction helps explain their fawning coverage of Obama. Many Republicans ignore the damage caused by the pro-marijuana movement, largely funded by George Soros, because one of their own, Senator Cory Gardner, is running for reelection in Colorado. He is what drug expert David Evans calls a “pot whore” for the marijuana industry, which is exporting the drug nationwide. Marijuana smuggling from Colorado has become a national scandal but Gardner continues to promote the deadly business. He should have stepped aside for a more conservative candidate and is going down to defeat, possibly costing the Republicans their Senate majority. CNBC’s Jim Cramer apologized for calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “Crazy Nancy,” a nickname from Trump, but they are both crazy because they constantly promote dope as a legitimate business. Pelosi even claimed dope was a treatment for coronavirus. A study found 68 references in a Pelosi coronavirus relief bill to promoting marijuana. Perhaps Obama’s “Promised Land” is one of free dope. His presidential pro-marijuana policies, carried out by his Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department, may have stemmed from his own history of heavy marijuana and cocaine use. His mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis used drugs and produced pornography, among other nefarious activities. Obama prefers Harris over Biden but will campaign for a Biden victory in November because he knows Biden is an empty suit and that Harris will be his puppet. It will be reminiscent of the dark days when Obama became a pawn of Communist Frank Marshall Davis but had to conceal the role of his puppet master, with the support of the media, as he took power. After his second term was over, he rushed over to Beijing to confer behind closed doors with Chinese dictator Xi, in what the British Guardian called a meeting of “veteran cadres.” Promised Land, huh? *Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org Briefing With Special Representative for Iran and Venezuela Elliott Abrams On Developments in Iran and Venezuela
09/16/2020 05:03 PM EDT Elliott Abrams, U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela Via Teleconference MS ORTAGUS: Thank you so much and good afternoon, everybody. I know we’re having this call right after we did the press conference with the Secretary and we have another briefing later today, so apologies that we’re piling all of you up today. We’re going to try to allow for as much time as possible for Q&A (inaudible) many of you have it. But just want to reiterate, of course, that this is an on-the-record briefing with Special Representative for Venezuela and now also for Iran Elliott Abrams. While this is an on-the-record briefing, the contents of this briefing are embargoed until the end of the call, please. This is actually Elliott’s first press briefing since he assumed both roles. He will of course begin with an introductory statement and then we’ll turn over to your questions. Just a reminder, you can press 1 and then 0 at any point in time on (inaudible) to enter the question queue. So with that, I’ll go ahead and turn it over to Special Representative Abrams. MR ABRAMS: Thanks, Morgan. I want to begin with a comment on Venezuela and the fraudulent election for the National Assembly now scheduled for December 6th, and then turn to Iran. None of the basic conditions for free elections exist in Venezuela. Opposition parties have been stolen and regime agents appointed to run them; the national elections commission is completely under regime control; freedom of the press does not exist; repression and intimidation by the police and colectivo gangs continues. There are not reliable and tested voting machines in Venezuela. The rules of the game were recently changed by the regime, which created over 100 new National Assembly seats and changed voting district lines. I could go on. And this is precisely why Interim President Juan Guaido and a coalition of 37 parties has said they would not legitimize this fraud by participating in the election. Needless to say, those conditions will not be cured merely by postponement; fraudulent elections are no less fraudulent if held a few months later. A cornerstone of our policy in Venezuela has been to support the diverse and broad array of democratic actors fighting for liberty and democracy there. To those who have decided to participate in the National Assembly elections, our message is that you have a special obligation to demand the necessary, internationally accepted conditions for free and fair elections, and to speak openly about the repression and corruption of the Maduro regime. We are able to distinguish between democratic actors who differ on strategy and people who work with the regime to undermine democracy. We will not hesitate to apply the full force of U.S. sanctions to the latter group, as we have been doing in the last few years. To all Venezuelans who struggle for free elections and a restoration of democracy, we continue to pledge our full support. And as you know, Secretary Pompeo will be visiting all of Venezuela’s neighbors – Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana – in a trip that starts tomorrow. I would draw your attention to the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council today by the UN’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela. This United Nations mission, quote, “found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights violations, some of which” – still quoting – “some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” close quote. And then in an extraordinary statement for a UN report, it says, quote, “the mission has reasonable grounds to believe that both the president and the ministers of people’s power for interior relations, justice and peace, and for defense, ordered or contributed to the commission of these crimes documented in this report,” close quote. These crimes, says the UN, crimes against humanity, start at the top. Now, we’re aware of reports of additional tankers heading to Venezuela from Iran, and that’s another reminder of how Maduro has destroyed Venezuela’s economy and infrastructure through incompetence and mismanagement and corruption and created the need to import gasoline into this oil-rich country. The installed crude oil refinery capacity in Venezuela is 1,300,000 barrels a day. But that corruption and neglect have reduced actual gasoline refined to less than 5 percent of that. So the regime turned to another international pariah, Iran, shipping it gold to buy gasoline. As you know, virtually all UN sanctions on Iran will come back into place this weekend at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday the 19th. The arms embargo will now be re-imposed indefinitely and other restrictions will return, including the ban on Iran engaging in enrichment and reprocessing-related activities, the prohibition on ballistic missile testing and development, and sanctions on the transfer of nuclear and missile-related technologies to Iran. The Secretary said just a couple of hours ago that we expect all UN member states to implement the UN sanctions fully and respect the process and obligations to uphold these sanctions. We’ll have a lot more to say on this, in detail, on Monday. This is a good moment to reflect on the almost religious commitment of some countries to that nuclear deal. But five years of JCPOA meetings have not moderated Iran’s tactics or choices at all. It’s time for peace-loving nations to recognize this reality and join us in imposing sanctions on Iran. It is astonishing that anyone would think or have thought it sensible to allow the arms embargo on Iran to expire next month, given that regime’s role in destabilizing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon and its continuing support for terrorism. I want to close with the story of Navid Afkari, the young Iranian wrestling champion. In the summer of 2018, Navid joined a peaceful protest along with his two brothers. The regime arrested all three of them and tortured them into confessing for a murder that took place when they were in a completely different part of town. The regime wanted to make an example of them and, as you know, executed Navid last weekend. This is a terrible reminder of the brutal and despotic regime with which we are dealing. I would remind you that yesterday Siamak Namazi celebrated his 49th birthday in the notorious Evin Prison. That marked 1,800 days – 1,800 days since the Iranian regime first took him hostage. Siamak, his father Baquer, and Morad Tahbaz remain innocent victims of the Iranian regime and we work every single day to gain their release. Thanks, and I’m happy to take questions on either Venezuela or Iran. MS ORTAGUS: Wonderful. Okay, great. First up in the queue is Gabriela Perozo, VPITV. QUESTION: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Do you think that this new report presented by the UN independent mission will help Europe not allow itself to be manipulated by this new strategy of Maduro to release political prisoners to achieve a dialogue? Do you believe that the UN General Assembly will be a good platform to reaffirm the strategy around the Interim President Guaido? And another question: Will Secretary Pompeo’s trip to Brazil and Colombia bring some surprises, maybe something new against the Maduro regime? Thank you. MR ABRAMS: Thanks. Well, as to the Secretary’s trip bringing surprises, of course if I said anything, it wouldn’t be surprises. There will be a briefing about the trip and I will let and, during the trip, the Secretary speak about the trip. On your first question, I sure hope so. This is an extraordinary report to come from the United Nations. We’re not used to seeing such tough reporting coming directly from the United Nations. So I hope it will have an impact on any government that is thinking about its policy toward the Maduro regime. This begins with a meeting – an important meeting – tomorrow of the International Contact Group on Venezuela, which will obviously issue a statement, as they always do. So I think this will remind people of the nature of the regime and remind them that the release of some political prisoners – in some cases partial release because they’re released to house arrest or the charges have not yet been dropped, and many others have not been released – this is a regime move that, as your question really suggested, is a tactic that does not change the nature of the regime and its systematic human rights violations, which are documented in this very substantial report. As to the UN General Assembly, I don’t know whether it will affect how the assembly votes on Venezuela. I really hope it will and I think that there will be a lot of governments around the world that will read this report, and particularly for those who don’t follow Venezuela closely it will be a revelation. MS ORTAGUS: Great, thank you so much. We’ll now turn it over to Matt Lee, AP. QUESTION: Thanks, Elliott. I have a – my questions are about Iran. You guys can say all you want that you expect UN member-states to go ahead and join you in enforcing the sanctions that you say are going to be reimposed, but the reality of the situation is that no one – no other country – exception for maybe Israel and maybe the Gulf, some of the Gulf countries – think that you have the legal standing to do this and so they’re not going to enforce them. So why is it wrong for people to think that you guys are just barreling ahead with something that is going to create major problems for the UN in terms of its credibility and the credibility of the Security Council, as well as U.S. credibility? Thanks. MR ABRAMS: Thanks, Matt. Secretary Pompeo did address similar questions, and I’ll answer your question as best I can, but I would urge you to take a look also at what he said at about noon today in the press conference with Foreign Secretary Raab. I do remember a couple of years ago the many, many expert opinions suggesting that the unilateral imposition of sanctions by the United States would have no effect on Iran, and as the Secretary said, boy, all you have to do is look at the Iranian economy to see that that is not true. And the reason that it was not true is that whatever foreign ministries said, individuals, businesspersons, banks, companies around the world paid attention to the sanctions and did not wish to violate them. I think you will see that happen again with respect to the reimposition of UN sanctions. I think that all of those individual actors around the world will take a look at the text of those sanctions and what the United States is saying and will realize that for them, the UN sanctions must be regarded as back into effect. So I do think that this will have a very significant impact. I don’t – and I think it’s – the United States, first of all, is not isolated with respect to the arms embargo. I think and we know from our conversations there are many countries around the world that feel exactly as we do, including in Europe, about the expiration of the arms embargo. There was a letter from the Gulf Cooperation Council, all the members, to the UN Security Council, saying please do not let the UN arms embargo end. And as the Secretary said, what we’re dealing with here is an effort on the part of the United States to overcome the diplomatic malpractice five years ago that suggested it would be a good idea to allow Iran to import and export any – any arms it wanted to – main battle tanks, combat jets – in only five years. That’s what we’re up against and that’s why we’re taking this action. MS ORTAGUS: Thank you so much. Okay, I’m going to try not to mispronounce the name here. Haik, H-a-i-k, Garats, G-a-r-a-t-s, from Argus Media. QUESTION: Hi, this is Haik Gugarats with Argus Media. Thank you. I have two questions for you, sir, one on Venezuela and one on Iran. On Venezuela, what is your current thinking on the diesel-for-crude swaps? Are your efforts to persuade companies not to participate in those working, and if not, do you think at some point a government directive to end it via sanctions will be necessary? And on Iran snapback, I’m trying to understand the practical effect given that you just said unilateral U.S. sanctions pretty much already ended most dealings between Iran and all the other countries. So what is it exactly that your snapback will do in ending any new transactions? Is it humanitarian deals, or what exactly will be the practical effect? Thank you. MR ABRAMS: Thanks. On the latter question, not humanitarian deals, there are carveouts in all – all U.S. sanctions for humanitarian goods such as food and medicine. But I’ll give you an example of where we expect a practical effect: the arms embargo. And as you know, it was the position of the United States that the arms embargo should be extended, and had it been extended, we would not have had to snap back to restore the full panoply of UN sanctions. So one practical effect, we believe, will be to say to arms manufacturers and traders around the world that if you engage in business with Iran, the very full force of these new or, rather, restored sanctions will be felt immediately. They will be placed on you. So I think you will see that happen. With respect to diesel and the impact of U.S. sanctions, I would just note first: You may have seen the decision by Tipco, the asphalt company, which has been a significant consumer of Venezuelan oil and deals with the regime, and PDVSA has announced that it is getting out of that business. We’re looking very carefully at the diesel question and we note, for example, that the Maduro regime is consistently shipping diesel and other oil products to Cuba. I have no announcements to make today, but I think it’s pretty well known that we’re reviewing the whole diesel question. MS ORTAGUS: Thank you. Carol Morello, Washington Post. QUESTION: (Inaudible) Elliott, you just said that arms dealers around the world will realize that the restored sanctions will be felt immediately. Are you making concrete plans now for secondary sanctions after the embargo officially expires next month? And do you have any thoughts on what the impact – having a confrontation with U.S. allies, Russia, China, Iran, and the Security Council itself might – just two weeks before the election – might have on the vote itself? MR ABRAMS: First, in our view, the UN sanctions snap back on Saturday at 8:00 p.m. So the October – I think it’s October 18th, the date for the end of the UN arms embargo – becomes a less significant date. As to whether we are making concrete plans, we are in many ways, and we will have some announcements over the weekend and more announcements on Monday and then subsequent days next week as to exactly how we are planning to enforce these returned UN sanctions. So you’ll see that. We actually have some announcements this week, but more on Saturday and then more on Monday and next week. I don’t think that this action on the part of the United States to enforce Resolution 2231 will have a negative impact on the UN Security Council unless other members of the Council continue to take the view that the UN sanctions have not returned and can be ignored. And whether those countries will in fact ignore the UN sanctions remains to be seen. We followed the procedures exactly set forth in Resolution 2231 word for word. MS ORTAGUS: Okay, thank you. We now have Meghan Gordon from Platts. QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Yes, on the Iranian fuel cargos heading to Venezuela, do you plan to target those with additional civil forfeiture cases like we saw earlier this summer or any other additional measures, or does the fact that they’re using Iranian tankers limit any options for stopping them? MR ABRAMS: Well, our first goal was to make sure that no one other than Iran would engage in this trade. And it is interesting, actually. A lot of people have gasoline for sale. Certainly, China and Russia have gasoline for sale, but U.S. sanctions have led them to the view that they should not be engaged in that trade, and the Greek shippers have gotten out of that trade. So we’re left only with Iranian tankers, Iranian-owned, flagged crude vessels that are engaged in that trade in a limited way. There are three on the way; that’ll provide a few weeks of gasoline. If you wanted to prevent the return of the kind of shortages that are now so common in Venezuela, you’d have had to leave Iran yesterday with another three tankers. You would need a shuttle service, which we have not seen. So we’re watching what Iran is doing and making sure, in the first instance, that other shippers, insurers, ship owners, ship captains realize they must stay away from that trade. MS ORTAGUS: Thank you. Joel Gerhke, Washington Examiner. QUESTION: Hi, thank you for doing this. I just wanted to follow up on the Iran question. I wonder: What practical actions do you believe that European countries could take to deter or interdict to Russian and Chinese arms sales to Iran? Would it be additional Iran-related sanctions on the Russian defense industry or new sanctions on Chinese companies? Would these actions find their legal basis solely in the UN arms embargo or could they be taken under the EU arms embargo authority or some other initiative? And then kind of related to that, setting aside the particular legal dispute with the UN Security Council, I wonder: Are there any negotiations perhaps from British officials, any proposals for how the – how U.S. and European countries might cooperate to mitigate the perceived threats that all parties perceive from these arms deals? MR ABRAMS: Yeah. Well, the European countries told us – the EU-3 and others as well – that they don’t want the arms embargo to end, but they were unable to take any action that kept the UN arms embargo in place. There’s a separate EU arms embargo. What the European countries could do would be, number one, to enforce the UN sanctions that returned this weekend. Secondly, they could maintain a UN – sorry, an EU arms embargo on Iran and they could do that indefinitely. Thirdly, they could cooperate closely with us as – and when they see any effort by Russia, China, or anybody else to sell arms to Iran. We – again, we will be enforcing those UN sanctions. In as much as the EU-3 and other Europeans have said to us, they really wish the UN arms embargo remained in place. They should take action to make sure, first, that no EU country engages in an arms sale to Iran, and second, they should be helping us to enforce the UN sanctions. And I do think that if the EU joined us in maintaining those sanctions, obviously it would have an impact on companies that were contemplating a sale. MS ORTAGUS: Okay, great, thank you. Let’s see. Next up in the queue, Muath Alamri. (No response.) MS ORTAGUS: Muath Alamri. OPERATOR: Go ahead. Your line is open. MS ORTAGUS: Okay. QUESTION: Hello? MS ORTAGUS: Hi. Go ahead. QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I would like to ask you about the intelligence report that Politico has published about the story about the – Iran weighing to attempt to assassinate the U.S. ambassador to the – to South Africa as a retaliation for the Soleimani killing. If you could elaborate what is the impact could happen and what those targets that Iran is looking to attack. MR ABRAMS: I would say first that – I would say first that no one should be surprised by reports in the press that Iran is contemplating or planning acts of terrorism. This regime has decades of blood on its hands for terrorist attacks not only near Iran, but all over the world, then we remember the plan to attack the Saudi ambassador here in Washington. Other than that, I would only say that the State Department and the U.S. Government more generally are always very attentive to the need to protect American officials around the world, but I don’t want to comment beyond that on this particular set of press reports. MS ORTAGUS: Okay, thank you. Nick Schifrin, PBS. (No response.) MS ORTAGUS: Nick Schifrin. OPERATOR: Mr. Schifrin, please press 1, 0. MS ORTAGUS: Oh, sorry. I thought he was still in the queue. Okay. If he’s not in the queue, then let’s go over to Lara Jakes, New York Times. I believe she’s on. OPERATOR: One moment. Okay. Ms. Jakes, your line is open. QUESTION: Hey Elliott, hey Morgan. Elliott, could you please speak to the case, the curious case of Matthew Heath, this former military – Marine, I believe – who the Venezuelan Government is saying is a U.S. spy? I mean, assuming you won’t speak to whether or not he’s an agent, certainly if there is an American who is being kept – held captive in Venezuela, I would assume that is something that the United States Government is trying to untangle and get him back home. Could you please bring us up to speed on the – those efforts? Thanks. MR ABRAMS: Well, there’s a limit to what I can say because I don’t have the privacy waiver that would allow us for – that would allow us to say a bit more. Obviously, we are always concerned when we get a report about an American who has been jailed in a foreign country. And Venezuela is particularly difficult because we do not have an embassy with a consular section in Caracas. I don’t think there’s much else I can say about this case except that from everything I’ve seen, it’s – I can say that the United States Government did not send Mr. Heath to Venezuela. MS ORTAGUS: Thank you. I think I want to try to get Nick back on, Nick Schifrin – he said he was on the line – PBS. Can we get him back on? OPERATOR: Go ahead, your line is open. QUESTION: Thanks, Morgan. Hey, Elliott. Thanks for doing this. Logistically, as I understand it, the resolution requires the U.S. to veto a resolution that would extend the sanctions, the snapback sanctions. So just making sure that’s right. Is the U.S. planning to introduce its own resolution that it would then veto, or do you think that’s not even necessary ahead of Saturday night? And a larger question: If those other countries don’t enforce these sanctions, do you fear that dilutes other Security Council sanctions, including, of course, the ones you’ve been talking about and working on when it comes to Venezuela? Thanks. MR ABRAMS: I think you’re misreading 2231. I think 2231 is pretty clear that any JCPOA participant state can send that notification to the Security Council about Iran’s failure to meet its responsibilities. And sanctions return 30 days later unless a resolution has been adopted that continues the lifting of sanctions which 2231 brought, the sanctions in all the previous resolutions – 1737, 1929, and so forth. So one way of getting there is somebody introduces a resolution to continue the sanctions, and they’re vetoed. That resolution is vetoed. The other way of getting there is that somebody introduces the letter to the council notifying it, and then the resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions does not pass. Well, it’s not passing. No one has introduced it. So the sanctions snap back. I do think 2231 is pretty clear on that. A – the introduction of a resolution and its veto is not required. And if you go back to the speeches of various officials made five years ago, they were very clear in saying that one country – we, in this case – can bring back the sanctions without the action of any other. So I don’t think that’s – I don’t think your interpretation of it was right. As to the impact on other Security Council sanctions, well, needless to say we hope not. What the United States is doing here is following the exact text of the UN Security Council Chapter VII resolution, Resolution 2231. And if other nations do not follow it, I think they should actually be asked your question, whether they do not think they’re weakening the structure of UN sanctions. MS ORTAGUS: Great. Thank you so much. Okay, I know we’re just – we’re running out of time here; I’ll try to fit one or two more in if I can. We had – sorry, guys, let me just the queue up back here – Nora Gamez from The Miami Herald. QUESTION: (Inaudible) this. I just have a question about Venezuela. The U.S. has said it’s willing to negotiate with Maduro, his exit. Does the fact that the UN believes he has committed crimes against humanity makes this hypothetical negotiations less likely? MR ABRAMS: I think it’s a – this UN report is a reminder of the nature of this regime. That’s why the United States introduced a few months ago our framework for a democratic transition, because we believed – and still do – that you need to get a transitional government in Venezuela that can hold a free election. If you look at this UN report and the nature of the crimes that it attributes to Maduro and the Maduro regime, you would really have to ask yourself, what is the chance that Maduro and his regime are actually going to hold a free election? Our conclusion was that there was no chance, which is why we said there needs to be a transitional government for the purpose of holding – in six months, nine months, whatever, twelve months – a really free and fair presidential election. We’ve also, in the – we’ve said that to many, many governments around the world, and it’s one of the reasons why we think that the notion that there will be a free election on December 6th really defies both logic and everything we know about the nature of this regime. The problem is that some people seem to think that the – time is the issue. So, okay, not December 6th, maybe postpone three months, and then we can organize a free election. We do not believe that it will be possible to organize free elections under this regime. MS ORTAGUS: Thank you. Okay, let’s see, I had somebody from ABC here. Oh yeah, David Alandete from ABC. QUESTION: Thank you, Morgan. Thank you, Ambassador Abrams. I wanted to ask you, there’s a meeting this Thursday of the Grupo de Contacto with the European Union. It seems that the High Commissioner Borrell mentioned that maybe, maybe a postponement of the election would guarantee the European Union sending observers. He didn’t say this himself; his office said it to some journalists in Brussels. And I wanted to know if what you think can happen from this meeting of the Grupo de Contacto, and if the postponement of the election was acceptable for the European Union, what would the United States diplomacy say to that? Thank you very much. MR ABRAMS: There are two issues here. The first, as I said a moment ago, is timing. No one believes they could, even if they wanted to hold a free election in December, that they could actually organize one. They need 30- or 40,000 voting machines. They need to import them from someplace. Five million Venezuelans are now outside the country and millions more have moved inside the country. So the updating of the electoral register is an enormous task that could not possibly be completed by December, again, even if you were really trying to do it with good will. But there’s a second issue, and here’s where I worry a bit about some of the things that we’ve heard from Brussels. The mere postponement is not enough. The electoral conditions must change. As I noted at the beginning, and I won’t go through all of them again, but remember that they’ve changed the rules of the game recently. The electoral commission is completely in Maduro’s hands. There’s no freedom of the press. The major opposition parties have been taken over and regime people have been made into the top officials of those parties, so there are no conditions for free elections. What am I worried about? What I’m worried about is a deal under which the European Union essentially says, “If – we’re not going to monitor elections in December. But if you postpone, then we can probably monitor.” Once you make that agreement, if you do, then you’re leaning very far forward toward monitoring. And if along the way – this is the danger – if along the way Maduro arrests this woman, Maduro jails that man, Maduro refuses to let these people out of prison, you’re – you don’t want to say, “Well, we made a mistake, and we’re not going to monitor, and we’re going to pull back.” There will be, I think, a normal human tendency to try to minimize or overlook both violations so that you can go forward with your agreement – “If you postpone, then we will monitor.” I think that would be a terrible deal. And I think the EU should, in the International Contact Group meeting tomorrow and in other statements it makes, be extremely clear that timing is just one factor and the fundamental conditions have to be put in place. I have sometimes thought in listening to the phrase “basic conditions” or “what are the minimum conditions,” that what some of you spokesmen are saying is, well, of course in Europe we need to have all the conditions for free elections but in Venezuela you just need basic minimum conditions, and that’s the wrong attitude. Venezuelans are entitled to free and fair elections just as much as anyone in Europe. MS ORTAGUS: Well, thank you, Elliott, you’ve been really gracious with your time. I’m going to have one more question and then many of you will be dialing in to our next briefing with . So can we go to Eli Lake, Bloomberg, for last question? Do we have Eli on -- QUESTION: Yeah, can you hear me? MS ORTAGUS: Okay. OPERATOR: Your line is now – oh, he just took himself out. One moment. Please press 1, 0 again. MS ORTAGUS: Eli, I think we still have you. OPERATOR: Go ahead, Eli, your line is open. QUESTION: Okay. Thanks so much for doing this, Elliott. Really quick, it’s almost 10 months since the U.S. killed Qasem Soleimani. Have you seen a deterrent effect as a result of that? Is Iran as threatening as it was before that action, or can you comment on that at all? MR ABRAMS: Yeah. I would say that action did a very great deal to restore American deterrence and I would say a certain degree of caution on the part of Iran. Prior to that they or some of them were in doubt about the willingness of the United States to conduct an activity like that, and I think some other countries in the region were too. And I think it’s much clearer now that the United States is truly willing to act to defend itself and its allies and to act against terrorism in the region. And so I think as we’ve looked at Iranian reaction since then, I can’t mindread but there are indications of some degree of caution on the part of Iran about what reaction from the United States a particular Iranian action might evoke. MS ORTAGUS: Great. Well, thank you, everybody, for dialing in today. We’ve gone quite over. Thank you, Elliott, so much for the extra time. And we’ll have another briefing this afternoon with and I hope you all dial in then. Thank you. MR ABRAMS: Thanks. Bye. September 16, 2020
RE: Oppose the Commercialization and Mass Marketing of High Potency Marijuana Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Leader Hoyer, Whip Scalise, Chairman Nadler, and Ranking Member Jordan, There have been reports that the House of Representatives may take up and vote on H.R. 3884, the Marijuana Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act later this month. As Americans on the front lines in the battle against opioid and drug addiction, and on the side of treatment and prevention, we write to strongly oppose this bill. This legislation is being touted as a social justice bill aimed at decriminalizing marijuana and expunging the record of low-level offenders. In fact, this bill as currently drafted would not just decriminalize marijuana, but fully legalize and commercialize the drug. This would allow major corporations like Altria (formerly Philip Morris, makers of Marlboro Cigarettes), vaping giants Juul and PAX, and Imperial Brands (makers of Kool Cigarettes) to deepen their existing investments into the marijuana industry and expand those investments to capture the United States market. The latest research and science should bring us all pause:
The “MORE” Act contains virtually no public health guardrails. If passed, the bill would fully legalize unlimited potency marijuana products, including high potency flavored vapes in Juul-like devices and nearly any other product appealing to youth. Any form of advertising would be allowed, including on television and during events such as the Super Bowl. Allowing a massive corporate takeover of an addictive drug with scientifically proven public health harms is not good for our nation as we continue to grapple with a global pandemic, along with a crippling opioid crisis. Should this bill pass into law, the FDA and USDA will not have the resources or ability to effectively regulate these products for the safety of consumers. We urge you to reject this bill. Sincerely, Smart Approaches to Marijuana Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals National Association for Children of Addiction (NACoA) Family Policy Alliance Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee Family Research Council Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation National Drug Free Workplace Alliance National Families in Action Caron Treatment Centers Drug Free Schools Coalition Coalition of Public Safety Officer Support Services Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) International Faith Based Coalition Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. Rosenthal Center for Addiction Studies Drug Free America Foundations, Inc. Save Our Society from Drugs Resilient Futures Network, LLC California Narcotic Officers Association Florida Coalition Alliance Greater New Orleans Drug Demand Reduction Coalition Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators Marijuana Victims Alliance Moms Strong Parents Opposed to Pot Every Brain Matters When We Had a CIA That Worked for America
By Cliff Kincaid – September 15, 2020 The left-wing Soros-funded National Security Archive has released some documents about the CIA’s good old days, when the agency had anti-communists on its staff and they responded to the orders of a duly elected resident. The documents concern the overthrow of the communist president of Chile in 1973. Chile was once run by an associate of Fidel Castro. Today, there is a narco-terrorist communist regime in Venezuela and the CIA can’t seem to do anything about it. The National Security Archive is outraged, of course, by the documents it highlighted on the 50th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's September 15, 1970, order to overthrow the communist Chilean President Salvador Allende. But I find this document refreshing. “1 in 10 chance, perhaps, but save Chile,” ordered Nixon. In this case, officials did the right thing, carrying out the president’s orders to thwart the communist advance in South America. “Not concerned [about] risks involved,” wrote CIA director Richard Helms about the president’s orders and policy. It was successful. The National Security Archive receives millions of dollars from left-wing foundations, including the Soros-funded Open Society Institute, but also gets money from Dow Jones and the New York Times. It frets that Nixon had “demanded regime change in the South American nation that had become the first in the world to freely elect a Socialist candidate.” Socialist? He was a Castro puppet. And he seized power with only 36 percent of the vote. It’s a “Full time job -- best men we have,” Nixon had said, arguing for a sustained effort to stop communism in Chile. “Make the economy scream.” The CIA didn’t have to work too hard. The people didn’t want communism and turned out in the streets to protest. The military responded with a coup against Allende and General Augusto Pinochet took power. Faced with a popular rebellion against his communist policies, Allende shot himself with an AK-47 assault rifle given to him by Castro. Pinochet saved Chile from communism, and presided over a transition to a free market economy that produced the greatest prosperity in Chilean history. He led a revolution in Chile that by communist standards was virtually bloodless. Some 3,000 people were killed by the military when they overthrew Salvador Allende. By contrast, in Russia and China, millions were slaughtered. Pinochet stepped down from power voluntarily and preserved freedom in Chile. But the Communists and their friends could not forgive Pinochet for saving Chile from communism. A renegade left-wing Spanish prosecutor tried to have Pinochet prosecuted for human rights violations when he visited London for medical treatment. Consider the CIA today, in regard to Venezuela’s Allende, the late Hugo Chavez, who was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. President Trump’s proposed replacement, Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaido, is another socialist. His Popular Will party is a “progressive” party and a member of the Socialist International. He doesn’t inspire much confidence. With years to plan Maduro’s demise, but crippled under Barack Hussein Obama, the CIA is in such bad shape they can’t or won’t replace one socialist with another. Guaido, the speaker of the National Assembly, is still on the outside looking in, wondering why the CIA is so incompetent and clamoring for more economic sanctions on the regime. But they haven’t been enough to generate “regime change.” If any country was ripe for an anti-communist revolution, it is Venezuela. But the CIA can’t pull it off. President Trump should find out why. Venezuela was once a major oil exporting nation but became an economic basket case under Chavez and Maduro. The regime is more of a national security problem than Iran and is believed to be running guns to terrorists and trafficking cocaine. Indeed, the Department of Justice in March indicted Maduro and other officials, along with two Colombia terrorist leaders, on drug and other charges. U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said Maduro and the other defendants “expressly intended to flood the United States with cocaine in order to undermine the health and wellbeing of our nation.” It’s great for President Trump to be presiding over peace in the Middle East, but what about the security threat a few thousand miles south of our border in Venezuela? Former CIA officer Brian Latell, author of Castro’s Secrets, once revealed that Hugo Chavez and/or his brother Adan were likely recruited by Castro’s intelligence service and that the Venezuelan intelligence service operates as an “adjunct” of the Cuban DGI. Yet, current and former CIA officials seem more concerned about Trump. Former CIA officials Michael Morell, Michael Hayden and Philip Mudd all denounced Trump before he took office. Former CIA operations officer Evan McMullin ran against him as an independent presidential candidate. Obama’s director of the CIA was John Brennan, who voted for the Communist Party (CPUSA) ticket when he was in college but was hired by the CIA anyway and quickly rose through the ranks. He is implicated in the Deep State effort to destroy the Trump presidency. The disclosures from the National Security Archive remind us of the days when the CIA destabilized communist regimes. Our own anti-communist Trump presidency seems to be their number one target these days. They seem to want to install a socialist regime in Washington, D.C. *Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org |