Search Results

In a noteworthy speech at Hillsdale College to celebrate Constitution Day, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr addressed long-brewing concerns about the criminalization of politics, pointing out that “prosecutors have all too often inserted themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories.” Unstated in his remarks is how the Obama Justice Department seemed to have egregiously expanded the abuse of criminal justice system tools against its political opposition and critics. Barr noted bad players in the criminal justice system will continue to abuse power “to the extent the Justice Department’s leaders will permit it.” Moreover, these officials will continue to abuse their offices as long as there are no adverse consequences for their lawlessness. The day following Barr’s speech, and in his first interview following his arrest for his involvement with the “We Build the Wall” project started by wounded Iraqi war veteran Brian Kolfage, Steve Bannon re-emphasized Barr’s point on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight. The purpose of criminalizing politics is to punish and silence opposition. Bannon told Carlson, "[w]hat these guys wanted to do was criminalize political speech and make sure [he] didn’t go back to the campaign." He said that not only is he innocent, but he will remain outspoken during this election season despite the continued "headhunting of high profile political targets." Regardless of whether Bannon is innocent or not, there is ample proof that the public has lost trust in the criminal justice system, and Bill Barr’s Hillsdale speech shows he knows that. This upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to show that it too must restore confidence in this system. It will decide whether to hear the case of Stephen E. Stockman v. U.S. Former Congressman Stockman’s appeal petition to the court filed late this past July is supported by four friend-of-the-court briefs, a rather substantial number at this stage, including one by noted constitutional scholar Professor John Eastman. Stockman, an outspoken critic of the Clintons, the Obama administration, and disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner, was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges that he and his associates defrauded two donors into giving money to nonprofit organizations with ties to Stockman and his political future. As with Bannon, prosecutors charged Stockman with using donated funds on his personal expenses. The Obama Justice Department empaneled at least three grand juries -- getting in its “batting practice” on this case -- before a fourth indicted Stockman. Stockman’s associates may have done things that with better legal advice they might have refrained from doing, but they were still victims of Obama’s justice system that criminalized political activity. One Stockman associate who testified against him at his trial recently wrote at American Thinker with cautionary remorse about being victim to the abuses: “During the Stockman trial … I saw [federal prosecutors] threaten people to comply with their demands to testify or else they would face prosecution.” The Obama administration’s lawless operations criminalizing politics is chronicled in an amicus brief filed by Republican politician and lawyer Joe Miller in Stockman’s appeal. After closely examining Stockman’s case, I am wholly convinced he was the victim of what Bill Barr laments. The amicus brief I filed explains how the Stockman case is literally the criminalization of politics. Stockman was prosecuted for unlawfully coordinating an “independent expenditure” between his campaign and a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. The government lawyers’ argument presented to the Texas jury was wrong, however, because the nonprofit publication that was developed from the money donated was not an “expenditure” subject to regulation under the often-arcane Federal Election Campaign Act. Stockman should not have even been indicted for this. As to the literal criminalization of politics, it got worse. The two donors were aware of the political nature of the nonprofit projects for which Stockman sought the donations. An issue in his trial was whether Stockman was honest in telling his two donors the funds would be used for lawful purposes. The instructions provided to the jury about the lawful activities in which nonprofits may engage entirely omitted the fact that these organizations may spend funds on certain types of political activities ranging from voter education to very partisan advocacy naming candidates. In other words, the jury was deceived into thinking Stockman lied to his donors about the lawfulness of their donations. Stockman’s case also relies on a 2003 opinion in Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that requires prosecutors to prove intent to commit fraud at the time nonprofit solicitations are made. Here, Ginsburg’s opinion and Barr’s observation about prosecutors relying on “the flimsiest of legal theories” merge in ways that should show Stockman’s innocence. It will take more than just time for Bill Barr to weed out political abuses from the Justice Department. The Supreme Court could help in a big way if it were to take Steve Stockman’s case, and reverse his conviction for engaging in lawful political activity. Mark J. Fitzgibbons is a fundraising law expert, and President of Corporate Affairs at American Target Advertising. 2020 Election William Barr Hillsdale College Speech criminalization of politics Supreme Court Steve Stockman Steve Bannon federal prosecutors Obama administration

That Democrats and their Far Left allies would oppose anyone President Trump nominated to the Supreme Court was a given. Although it would be hard to get lower and more vicious than what they did to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, how far they would go to defeat Trump’s next nominee was still an open question. The nomination of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Amy Coney Barrett has now answered that question – and the short version is they will wallow deeply in a kind of religious bigotry we thought had been banished from polite society more than 100 years ago. No less an arbiter of all things fit to print than the New York Times, via opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig, threw this swill on Judge Coney Barrett in an otherwise ever so reasonable sounding column: …Ms. Barrett’s nomination has merely renewed attention to a fundamental conflict, centuries underway, between Catholicism and the American ethos… In the case of religious tolerance, liberals have historically grappled with the matter of Roman Catholicism… Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations. In the thought of John Locke, one of liberalism’s earliest architects, willingness to make that distinction was critical to participation in a tolerant society. “Basically,” the political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in a 1999 essay, “Locke drew up a strong civic map with religion within one sphere and government in another. A person could be a citizen of each so long as that citizen never attempted to merge and blend the two.” Locke notably excluded Catholics from the religions meriting toleration because he suspected they could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere. Locke’s concern was not entirely baseless. HBO host Bill Maher savaged Judge Coney Barrett for her Roman Catholic faith, “Apparently, the pick is going to be Amy Coney. We’re going to be saying the name a lot because she’s a f***ing nut. Religion, I was right about that one, too,” Maher said. “Amy Coney Barrett. Catholic. Really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic, like speaking in tongues.” Likewise, Washington Post book critic Ray Charles suggested that there was something nefarious to Barrett’s statement that she intends to pursue “the kingdom of God.” Maher, Charles and others are apparently incensed by this line from a speech Judge Coney Barrett gave in a commencement address at Notre Dame law school: “Keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end," she told graduates. "That end is building the kingdom of God.” Or as Ms. Bruenig critiqued Catholicism for The New York Times: “In the case of religious tolerance, liberals have historically grappled with the matter of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations.” How do Democrats and their Far Left allies square nominating for President Joe Biden, a self-described devout Roman Catholic, with their criticism of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s faith? Ms. Brunig says “the logic of partisanship has replaced the moral primacy of the faith. That means that, for most Catholics, their religious beliefs never clash with their civic interests in a disruptive way. When they do, the solution is typically some kind of exemption from particular legal or civic obligations.” In other words, Joe Biden gets a pass because he is devout in Catholic ritual rather than practice. And left unplumbed are those areas, such illegal immigration and various ‘social justice’ causes, where Catholic teachings advance the agenda of the Left. What causes concern about Amy Coney Barrett is that she apparently subscribes to the full spectrum of Catholic Church teachings on the right-to-life, marriage, homosexuality and transgenderism and those Catholic Church teachings might influence a soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Were Ms. Brunig and other critics of Judge Coney Barrett’s faith to take the time to speak with other believers, they might be surprised to learn that the concept of living your faith is not limited to devout Roman Catholics. Many Christians and Jews live their faith outside the walls of their religious institutions – indeed millions subscribe to the idea that the whole point of having religious faith is to have a guide for one’s life beyond the savagery of living to satisfy one’s physical needs. So, if you are a Christian who lives to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or a Jew who lives according to the Law, the bigotry against Amy Coney Barrett isn’t just bigotry against Roman Catholics. Scratch the surface and you will find it is bigotry against anyone who lives their faith and rejects the secularism of the cultural Left, and if you haven’t experienced it yet, be assured it will come for you eventually. Our friends at Americans for Limited Government have made it easy to urge your Senators to vote in favor of the confirmation of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, please click this link to express your support for Amy Coney Barrett and your opposition to the religious bigotry being deployed against her by the Democrats and their Far Left allies. George Rasley, Managing Editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com, is an ordained Elder of the Presbyterian Church and a member of Faith Leaders for America. 2020 Election William Barr abortion pro-life Donald Trump Supreme Court nomination Ruth Bader Ginsburg death senate confirmation Ronald Reagan Fr. Frank Pavone Sister Deirdre "Dede" Byrne Abby Johnson, Born Alive Executive Order Amy Coney Barrett religious freedom religious test Catholic vote

The media keeps asking Republicans if there will be “a peaceful transition of power” after the November 3, 2020 election. What they are really asking is “will Republicans give up without a fight when Democrats try to steal the election?” And of course the feckless Republican establishment always obliges them in establishing the narrative that President Trump is a dictator and the villain if he undertakes any effort to require the election to be conducted according to the established law and counted according to established consistent and transparent standards. John Bowden of The Hill reported Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-highest member of House Republican leadership, was the latest to get suckered into helping the Left establish this narrative when she “joined other Republicans in distancing herself from controversial remarks made by Trump on Wednesday during a news conference at which he refused to commit to peacefully handing power to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden should Trump lose in November. The president followed those comments by again raising baseless claims of mail-in ballot fraud.” "The peaceful transfer of power is enshrined in our Constitution and fundamental to the survival of our Republic. America’s leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. We will uphold that oath," Cheney tweeted Thursday morning. And as the BBC reported, other Republicans have blindly assisted in setting Trump up: "The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th," Mr. McConnell tweeted on Thursday. "There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792." Other Republican lawmakers, including vocal Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham, have similarly promised a safe and fair election. "I can assure it will be peaceful," Mr Graham told Fox News. Senator Mitt Romney offered a more critical response on Wednesday, saying "any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable". How do we know what’s going on here? Well, the first clue is that the Leftist media never asks Democrats if they will accept defeat if Trump wins. No one has asked Speaker Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer or Democrat candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris if they will concede and assume the pre-2016 role of loyal opposition if they lose. Instead, they are asked to comment on Trump’s comments and when they do, you get Schumer saying Trump does not deserve to be President and “one way or another” there will be a “peaceful transition.” Of course, part of the problem is that Biden and Harris are not taking questions, particularly from independent reporters, so there is no way to ask them the question. But the real tell is that Democrats and their Leftist allies have already said point blank they will not accept defeat. As David Harsanyi explained in an op-ed for The New York Post and we explained in our column “Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump” Democrats are determined to treat November’s election as illegitimate — unless they win. Miranda Devine, a New York Post Columnist, told Fox and Friends, “If you think that they were sore losers in 2016, you ain’t seen anything yet. … Democrats have no intention of accepting defeat at the ballot box.” And as Fox News reported, MoveOn, and other left-wing groups are gearing up for 'mass public unrest' after Election Day. According to the Daily Beast, members of the group held a Zoom call in which they discussed how they can plan for Election Day and then coordinate large-scale civil disobedience and what one participant called "mass public unrest" if – as they predict – President Trump and his supporters contest November's election results. And as Mr. Harsanyi reported, a recent deep dive in the Washington Post, “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?,” exploring various potential outcomes of the 2020 presidential election, found that in “every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically.” According to the article, any other outcome is destined to spark “violence” and a “constitutional crisis.” In their “war game” scenarios it’s the Democrats who refuse to accept the will of courts to adhere to the constitutionally prescribed system rather than hysteria, and it’s the Democrats who threaten to secede from the union if Trump takes office. In that scenario the Democratic House unilaterally names Biden president. “At that point in the scenario,” the New York Times’ Ben Smith explains, “the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.” As Mr. Harsanyi observed, a recent USA Today poll found that 28 percent of Biden’s supporters say they aren’t prepared to accept a Trump victory as “fairly won,” and 19 percent of Trump’s supporters say the same about a potential Biden victory. So a significant minority of American voters don’t believe the next election will be legitimate before it has even been conducted. What happens when every long line at the polls and every Facebook meme and every delayed mail-in ballot is turned into a nefarious plot by the enemy to snatch democracy from the rightful winner? It’s going to be ugly indeed, predicted David Harsanyi. If their “war games” are to be believed, then that’s what Democrats are counting on. 2020 Election William Barr abortion pro-life Donald Trump Supreme Court nomination Ruth Bader Ginsburg death senate confirmation Ronald Reagan Peaceful transfer of power riots protests anarchy

Confirming judges wasn’t supposed to be political; the Democrats made it that way Anyone who’s paid attention to American politics since the onset of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus pandemic and panic earlier this year recognizes how the establishment media has gleefully anticipated that people will base their November election vote on whether they believe President Donald Trump handled the crisis response properly. As is typical for most anything concerning the media, their pronouncements and analyses are far too simple. Sophisticated American voters -- at least the ones who haven’t already made up their minds to choose doddering Democrat dufus nominee Joe Biden -- weigh lots of factors in their deliberations. The virus is one thing. The economy is another. The nation’s social unrest and shifting attitudes on law enforcement and “protests” is yet another (see, Louisville). With attention focused elsewhere, the Supreme Court probably wasn’t high on the list of potential game-changers until last Friday, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away. Republicans now feel the ensuing chatter and upcoming confirmation struggle will bolster the party’s chances to thrive on Election Day. W. James Antle III wrote at The Washington Examiner, “A Pew poll released the month before Ginsburg’s death found that Supreme Court appointments were a top-three issue for registered voters nationally, just ahead of the coronavirus. Four years ago, the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia was a winning issue for Trump... “Trump has once again released a list of prospective Supreme Court justices, though he has far greater credibility among social conservatives than when he first ran. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has said he will not tip his hand as to whom he would nominate to fill Ginsburg’s seat or any other vacancy that might arise if he is elected...” The Democrats’ handling of the Supreme Court issue has always been curious. Historically speaking, the Supreme Court was not intended to be the political football it is today. Technically, the judicial branch has no real power other than applying the facts of a case or controversy to the laws passed by Congress and then determining whether there’s a violation of one or more of them. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? “The defendant was arrested by the police for crossing the street in a non-designated zone (sometimes known as a crosswalk) in violation of statute X, which plainly states that pedestrians should only step out into the roadway when situated in such areas or directed by the police to do so.” Testimony is heard and counsel for both interests present their arguments; the judge then makes a determination and, if there’s a conviction, pronounces a sentence. In a politics-free world, being a judge wouldn’t cause any controversy whatsoever. The Constitution itself doesn’t go into great depth on the subject. Then came the principle of judicial review as formulated by legendary Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison. In 1801, outgoing President John Adams made a number of last-minute appointments to try and preserve the Federalist Party’s hold on the young United States government. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether these appointments -- the physical papers -- should be delivered. Marshall wrote that Secretary of State James Madison was wrong to hold onto the papers themselves, but also that the provision of the law allowing the Supreme Court to decide such things was contrary to the Court’s authority as granted by the Constitution… and was therefore invalid. Thus, the Supreme Court gained the capacity to declare laws unconstitutional. A case that reeked of politics greatly expanded the Court’s power. Is it any surprise that politics has reared its ugly head now? Post-Marbury, because the Supreme Court possessed the power to invalidate laws -- and later on, to basically write or rewrite them -- appointments to the bench became extremely valuable to both parties. Today’s judges are divided between two philosophies: those who believe powers that weren’t expressly granted by the Constitution should be legislated into law by elected bodies; and those who seem to think that the courts can act as super legislatures, creating “rights” that weren’t approved through the legislative process. Liberty lovers and conservatives side with the textual originalists such as Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Liberals treasure the Supreme Court because it allows them to read new “rights” into law without bothering to have them enacted by legislatures. Why get your people elected into majorities to propose and pass bills when five judges on the Supreme Court can do it much quicker and cheaper? It alleviates the need to campaign for candidates and sway public opinion as well. Ruth Bader Ginsburg embodied the latter philosophy. She’s canonized by the left because of her willingness to enshrine liberal social issues into the Constitution. Together with fellow Democrat appointees Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Ginsburg opposed any attempt by the originalists to require state and local governments to do the lawmaking. Liberal interest groups loved her because her vote for their causes was guaranteed. Abortion is the topic du jour because it’s the most shining example of a “right” that wouldn’t pass through Congress and a number of state legislatures, but was proclaimed by a Supreme Court majority. Hence, access to an abortion is a federal right, a law that applies to all fifty states. What most people don’t realize is, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the “right” wouldn’t just vanish. Many liberal states, such as California and New York, would pass (or already have passed?) laws providing for legalized abortion. The symbolic victory would vanish, however. Liberals would actually have to convince a majority of the public that unborn babies aren’t really human and that the mother carrying the growing child could terminate the pregnancy whenever she chooses. Subsequent advances in medical science have further complicated the issue since hospitals can keep younger and less developed babies alive. And ultrasound technology shows mothers and fathers that the growing baby isn’t just a “tissue mass” to be cast away on a whim. It's not about politics; it’s about life. And power. Who decides? Nominating and then confirming a new Supreme Court justice will definitely help Trump “Democrats are outraged that Trump will try to nominate a Ginsburg replacement so close to the election after Senate Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, for almost a year,” Antle wrote. “They believe their voters will be motivated to see a liberal succeed Ginsburg, whom they revered as a feminist icon. But Republican operatives believe even that passion could work to Trump’s benefit if Democrats champion court-packing legislation or a new impeachment inquiry to derail a conservative court majority. Some rank-and-file liberals may even engage in civil unrest.” People still generally believe the old saying that Republicans are the “stupid party” and Democrats are the “evil party”. Only this time, Republicans aren’t acting so stupid -- they’re actually doing something quite smart -- and Democrats are still, well, evil. The events of the past week indicate that perhaps GOPers have learned what’s at stake and aren’t about to be threatened and bullied into giving up an opportunity to take away one of the left’s favorite play toys, the Supreme Court, and use it to their advantage. Grampa Joe Biden said earlier this week that he won’t produce a Supreme Court list and he also won’t indicate whether he’s in favor of ditching the senate’s filibuster power on legislative bills if he becomes president. Everyone knows the Democrat nominee is terrified of naming names because the person or persons he would offer might alienate one or more of his coalitions. He’s already elevated an African-American woman to his presidential ticket, does this give him enough leeway with liberals to nominate a white male to the Supreme Court? Merrick Garland is a white male, but he was nominated by Obama. Biden, the pasty white would-be president, wouldn’t be allowed such considerations in the skin color-obsessed Democrat party. Who knows, maybe liberals decide which racial and gender classifications to favor based on a game of darts at party headquarters. Or set up huge Venn Diagrams of potential candidates and see where they overlap. President Trump did something very Biden-esque when he announced that his next nominee would be a woman. Republicans aren’t immune to the identity politics game, but there’s now enormous pressure to fill a woman’s seat on the Court with another woman, especially since there are no conservative females on the bench at present. With polls consistently showing Trump lagging well behind the Democrat nominee with suburban women, to select a “normal” woman to replace the liberal ideological crusader Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a no-brainer. Not all women adhere to the dictates of radical feminists. Many, many female voters find abortion abhorrent and wrong. If anything, religious and traditionalist women have never been represented on the Court. That could very well change by Election Day. Democrat vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris doesn’t exactly engender a lot of positive empathy either. Does anyone seriously hope their little girl emulates Harris, a woman who initially gained access to power by dating a married man twice her age? As I previously argued, Harris will reveal her true self during the confirmation process for Trump’s appointee. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is also on the Judiciary Committee, another example of liberal feminism gone wrong. Republicans will earn the respect of voters for finally taking a stand on something and carrying it through. What would they gain by cowering under the Democrats’ threats? Joe Biden won’t even put himself on the record with a list of people he would consider for a vacancy. Do Americans prefer holding back for political reasons or forging ahead and showing leadership? Donald Trump is not a perfect politician, but he’s instilled a combative attitude in Republicans that’s necessary in today’s divided environment. Would the Founding Fathers have shrunk from such a challenge? Or Abraham Lincoln? Or Teddy Roosevelt? Or Ronald Reagan? Hiding from a duty makes you one thing and one thing only: a loser. Republicans -- or at least 51 or them -- decided to stand for something, and Trump and Mitch McConnell inspired them to do it. Perhaps it was the abhorrent treatment Democrats afforded Brett Kavanaugh two years ago; or maybe it’s the election. If they keep going, folks won’t think of them as the “stupid” party any longer. COVID-19 deaths reached a milestone this week; people would rather talk about the Supreme Court The number of fatalities attributed to the CCP virus spilled over 200,000 this week. As would be expected, like cheerleaders at a pep rally for a bad team, the media tried hard to get people roused over the enormity of the number. The “fans” preferred to concentrate on the positive. Cassidy Morrison reported at The Washington Examiner, “The U.S. COVID-19 death toll hit 200,000 Tuesday, but the rate of deaths has slowed, keeping hopes alive for a less disruptive fall. “The current coronavirus mortality rate in the United States is nowhere near what it was in April at the pandemic’s peak, when daily deaths would often surpass 2,000. Keeping coronavirus transmission rates low in colder months will be difficult as more people are indoors and in smaller spaces, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, told CNN Tuesday. He added that he'd like to see the U.S. go into the fall and winter months ‘at such a low level that when you have the inevitable cases, you can handle them.’ “As long as people continue to take the threat of infection seriously and follow social distancing guidelines, the U.S. will be able to decrease the COVID-19 mortality and case rates while waiting for a vaccine to become available, he said.” Maintaining social distance and keeping the disease under control shouldn’t be a problem. The number of confirmed cases continues to go up dramatically while deaths are dwindling. No doubt many, many people have had the virus and recovered without symptoms. Americans realize all the hype didn’t match reality. With the Supreme Court vacancy and upcoming nomination occupying Americans’ minds, it’s not nearly as likely that COVID-19 will be the all-encompassing political issue that Democrats had hoped it would be for much of this year. The mostly united Republican Party has found unity to be a good thing, and so will the voters in early November. 2020 election COVID-19 coronavirus CDC Anthony Fauci Donald Trump Mail-in ballots election fraud Republicans Joe Biden judicial review Marbury v. Madison

Biden begs establishment Republicans to defy Trump and McConnell on Court nominee As the senate -- and the world -- awaits the name of who should become the next Supreme Court justice (replacing the departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg), it’s helpful to think back to 2016, when the issue was cut and dried for both parties. Since there invariably will be many, many, partisan disagreements on how to proceed from here on out, it’s best to return to a time of clarity (which is rare, these days). For his part, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been patently consistent. To rehash, in 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly, McConnell immediately announced that he would not act on any nomination forwarded by Democrat President Barack Obama. The reason? The presidency and senate were controlled by different parties. In an election year, McConnell reasoned, the voters should determine the future of the Supreme Court seat by their choice of presidential candidate and senate balance. Pretty simple stuff, huh? Liberals figuratively leaped over proverbial cliffs trying to capture the Supreme Court’s ideological majority in one fell swoop. McConnell held fast against pressure to at least hold hearings on Obama’s choice; interest groups demanded “fairness” of the process or something. Democrats cried foul, including then-Vice President Joe Biden. You see, Biden, during his thirty-six years in the senate, had been chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- the one charged with reviewing the qualifications of nominees for the federal courts -- and, in that capacity, said he would immediately act on any name sent before him no matter the calendar position. Biden said four years ago (as quoted by Byron York at The Washington Examiner), “I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman -- even a few months before a presidential election -- if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate -- just as the Constitution requires.” Say what? Is there wiggle room here? What exactly does “advice” mean in this context, that Biden would’ve moved a nomination if the president had called him up and asked for his list of judges he’d consider offering a hearing? But Biden doesn’t do lists. And there’s absolutely no definition of what “advice” connotates. Through experience we’ve learned Democrats seem to think court nominations is a cooperative process, that presidents must work with Congress on candidates for the judiciary. This may be true in the abstract sense -- Trump could consult with McConnell for his “advice” on certain people, but the consultation ends there. Conservatives have been -- and still are -- wary of the Majority Leader being seen as a protector of the party establishment. But this more often crops up in primary races like the one in Alabama in 2017, not on judicial branch matters. Biden wasn’t the only Democrat who weighed-in on the 2016 vacancy. Again, York wrote, “Other top Democrats demanded that the Senate consider Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, even though 2016 was an election year. That shouldn't have anything to do with it! they argued. Now, media attention is focusing on Republicans who stopped Garland back then but will consider Trump's nominee now. They're hypocrites! But in court nominations, hypocrisy has always -- always -- been a two-say street. And also remember that Senate Republicans made clear that his blockade of the Garland nomination was based on the fact that the White House and Senate were under the control of different parties.” Actually, the hypocrisy hasn’t always been a two-way street, at least in recent decades. It seems like a long time ago now, but Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate 96-3 in 1993. Obama nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were passed by the Democrat-majority senate 68-31 and 63-37 respectively in 2009 and 2010. Bill Clinton’s other nominee, Stephen Breyer, earned the votes of 87 senators (nine against). Prior to Ginsburg, George H.W. Bush-appointed Clarence Thomas barely squeaked through at 52-48. Of course Brett Kavanaugh barely made it, too, and his vote was 50-48. Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch (Scalia’s replacement), was only a little more comfortable with a 54-45 tally. The vote on Gorsuch was made possible by the Republican senate voting to ditch the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. He obviously wouldn’t have been confirmed if he’d needed 60 votes. So, as is plainly obvious, only conservative/Republican appointees have had any trouble getting confirmed in the past 50-plus years. Though the “no” vote totals were much higher than “normal” for Obama’s first two vacancies, both women still came through with filibuster-proof majorities. Here’s thinking some Republicans wouldn’t dare vote against a woman, even today. But Democrats apparently have no qualms with dissing women (the upcoming nomination) and minority (Clarence Thomas) hopefuls! And they’re the defenders of the oppressed? It doesn’t gel, does it? Unlike in 2016, Joe thinks it would be unconscionable to vote on a Court appointment What’s Biden saying now? His tune has completely changed! York additionally reported that the Democrat candidate said, “I appeal to those few Senate Republicans -- the handful who will really decide what happens -- don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created… Don't go there. Uphold your constitutional duty -- your conscience. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country.” Was Biden talking about the fires raging in the western blue states or the ones set by Black Lives Matter and Antifa “protesters” backed by Democrats? Don’t go there? Since when does Biden care about the Constitution? And he does seem to honor one’s “conscience” as long as he agrees with what’s at issue. There’s no such thing as “conscience” to a Democrat when demanding religious entities pay for birth control and abortifacients against their beliefs. Or to force hiring of homosexuals in the same scenario. Or to require pro-lifers to respect the life-squelching Roe v. Wade decision. Or to try and revoke the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-protection. Nearly all Republicans are okay with the notion of moving on a Trump nominee. Does this mean they lack a “conscience” in Grampa Joe’s estimation? Ol’ Grampa Joe was actually correct about one thing -- there are only a few Republicans who would even consider the stupid and inane childish pleadings of a politician so far past his prime that he probably doesn’t even remember the circumstances of 2016. Susan Collins (who’s up for reelection this year), Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have all said at one time or another that they wouldn’t want to see the process go through during an election year. Collins clarified her position -- she’s okay with holding hearings on a potential new justice, but wouldn’t want the vote until after the Nov. 3 election. This clearly frees her up one way or another. If she loses, she’s still a lame duck senator and her vote counts just as much as it would on the day she was sworn-in. If she wins, on the other hand, she can go-ahead with her yes vote without reservation. Romney is an interesting case. For the past four years he’s conducted a running feud with Trump over just about every matter under the Washington DC sun, though the two did apparently meet on friendlier terms when the 2012 loser was being considered for the new president’s secretary of state position in December, 2016. It could be said Mitt has issues with Trump but not necessarily Republicans in general, and he would come off as the biggest hypocrite of all-time if he stonewalled a Supreme Court nominee considered acceptable to practically everyone in the party. Flip-flopper Mitt only seems to care about his own legacy. Would he hope to be remembered as an outlaw? He voted yes on impeachment knowing it had no chance of convicting Trump. Here, one vote really matters. (Note: Romney announced he would vote on the nominee. Hooray for Mitt! He’s not a goat!) Colorado Senator Cory Gardner would’ve been another potential wavering Republican. Like Collins, Gardner is up for reelection in a purple/blue state. Political considerations mean everything to the establishment-types with the senator probably hoping to keep his distance from both Trump and McConnell until Election Day. But here’s thinking Gardner wouldn’t gain anything by siding with the Biden/“Chucky” Schumer forces. Does anyone seriously believe Gardner would pick up liberal votes by caving on this one issue? Not a chance. (Note: Gardner said he will also vote on a nominee, clearing the way for Trump to move on it.) There are Democrats with political considerations as well. Alabama Senator Doug Jones won his seat in the blood red state because Republicans split over their own nominee. With Trump on the ballot this year, Jones’s chances of reelection are slim to none. But he could conceivably win favor with “moderates” by bucking his party on the Supreme Court nomination. Jones is a tried and true liberal and the only reason why the media asks him such questions is because everyone knows he’s a goner. Think Scott Brown in Massachusetts after winning Teddy Kennedy’s seat in a special election but having no realistic shot to serve long in Washington. Jones could act on his “conscience” and vote for Ginsburg’s successor -- if the vote were held before Nov. 3. There’s also West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who voted for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Would he oppose a Trump nominee when three-quarters of his state’s residents like her? “Chucky” Schumer and Nancy Pelosi threaten McConnell and Trump over nomination fight If there was any lingering doubt over how badly Democrats want to avoid having President Trump nominate Ginsburg’s successor, it was dispelled last weekend when “Chucky” said “nothing is off the table” if Republicans go forward with their constitutional duty and Pelosi hinted that the House may try to control the senate calendar with another impeachment effort. You had to figure liberals would throw a fit if they didn’t get their way on this, but such infantile grandstanding is ludicrous even for them. What exactly was “off the table” before, Chucky? Were senate Democrats withholding their really, really serious procedural weapons before when they blockaded practically every nominee (for any office) and legislative move McConnell’s made? Have they not stalled and obstructed on everything from the budget to assenting to Trump’s proposed border wall? Just imagine what’s “on the table” now, folks. Maybe Democrats will stage a huge sit-in in the Capitol Building, barricading themselves inside and staging hunger strikes. Or Nancy Pelosi will task Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the “Squad” with drafting a one sentence impeachment article, supported by evidence consisting of “Donald Trump sucks.” It would receive an immediate vote, and instead of sitting on the papers for three weeks like the last ones (passed in December of last year but not delivered until mid-January), they’ll all ride their bikes over to the upper chamber to present the official documents. Whatever happened to all the paranoia over the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus? Or how about the tantrums and bloviating over Trump’s alleged tampering with the postal service? What about voter suppression? Or the existential crisis of climate change? If Democrats are bent on impeaching Trump in a month’s time, what about all those other things? It's obvious that liberals are petrified of not only losing out on Ginsburg’s seat but seeing the Supreme Court vacancy supersede all the “Orange Man Bad!!” scare tactics they’ve been promoting for months. They’re gambling that Americans love abortion so much that they’ll get behind efforts to shut down the entire country over this. I think they’re wrong. If Grampa Joe can’t draw a big crowd in blue Minnesota, where can he expect one? It's possible the unanticipated Supreme Court vacancy could rouse liberals in big numbers to support Joe Biden and his abortion-touting ways. But other traditionally Democrat issues don’t seem to be doing the trick. Naomi Lim reported at The Washington Examiner, “Biden, the former two-term vice president and 36-year Delaware senator, visited carpenter apprentices and other union workers near Duluth on Friday, his first trip to Minnesota in more than 1,000 days, according to the Trump campaign. “Yet, despite his team releasing scant details about his itinerary, even to the local press, Republicans outnumbered Democrats at Hermantown's Jerry Alander Carpenter Training Center, worrying those who are opposed to Trump clinching a second term on Nov. 3. “The Republican National Committee and the Minnesota GOP organized roughly 300 people to line Miller Trunk Highway for Biden's stop. Democrats had less than half that number and told the Washington Examiner they didn't know one another. Some, though, had traveled more than two hours from Minneapolis to see their party's standard-bearer.” It’s curious how Democrats think states like Minnesota are in the tank for Biden as though this summer’s rioting and wanton destruction of inner cities is destined to spur citizens to vote for the party that champions the people who perpetrated the mayhem. “Social justice” is one thing, but decades of Democrat rule haven’t produced positive outcomes. The enthusiasm factor is only one thing that Trump’s got on his side. Biden couldn’t draw a crowd if he were the only act on the calendar at a senior care facility and the TV was broken. Would anti-Trump animus alone generate the kind of turnout Democrats are seeking? The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed the dynamic of the 2020 election, but it hasn’t solved the problems Democrats were already experiencing in trying to get voters enthusiastic about Joe Biden. Trump will announce a nominee on Saturday. Events will determine whether Republicans’ decision to move forward was the prudent one. 2020 election Joe Biden Donald Trump Supreme Court vacancy Minnesota COVID-19 Chuck Schumer threat Nancy Pelosi threat Trump Supreme Court list Biden Supreme Court list

After a new joint report on Biden family dealings in Russia and Ukraine was released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with the Senate Finance Committee, Tim Murtaugh, Trump 2020 communications director had this hot take: The Senate investigation’s explosive new revelations about the Biden family profiting from Russia, China and other foreign sources while Joe Biden was vice president amount to stunning levels of corruption and breathtaking breaches of America’s national security. While Biden was vice president, his son Hunter received a $3.5 million wire transfer from the billionaire wife of the former mayor of Moscow, individuals who are undoubtedly connected to Vladimir Putin. Chinese nationals also lavished Hunter and other members of the Biden family with money, giving Hunter and Biden’s brother James credit cards for a $100,000 international shopping spree. But the mysterious $142,300 wire transfer from a Kazakhstan businessman through a Latvian bank and a company in Singapore has to take the cake. These bombshells are in addition to new information regarding Hunter’s sweetheart gig on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company that bribed a Ukrainian prosecutor. Page 17 of this report reveals that Joe Biden flat out lied when he said he had never spoken with Hunter about his foreign business dealings. After a State Department official raised concerns with Vice President Biden about it in the West Wing of the White House, Biden spoke with Hunter about it and Hunter contacted the official. For what possible reason could all of these foreign countries and entities be shoveling money at people named Biden, if not to influence official U.S. policy? American journalists have a responsibility to relentlessly question Joe Biden about all of this, in detail, and to call out his attempts to cover up this potentially criminal activity. Regardless of whether Biden is forced to face the music, this is further evidence that if Joe Biden wins, China and many other foreign interests with a financial stake in the Biden family win too. But Mr. Murtaugh was much too polite to highlight some of the report’s most damning revelations. Other items in the Senate’s long-anticipated report detailing the Biden family’s conflicts of interest include accusations that Hunter Biden paid Eastern European hookers who might have been trafficked. Hunter Biden, the committees wrote, initiated some transactions that were Russian- and Ukrainian-linked to what “appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring,” reported The Federalist’s Tristan Justice. However, our friends at The Conservative Treehouse focused on the potential for blackmail against the Biden family, the former vice-president and the U.S. government if Joe Biden was to remain in public office. The report is damning. Highlights include: In early 2015 former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.” In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine. Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” George Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the resident legal adviser reported this allegation to the FBI. In addition to the over four million dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, for membership on the board, Hunter, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds. Devon Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea. Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina. Ms. Baturina is the wife (widow) of the former mayor of Moscow. Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in questionable transactions. Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong that financed a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden. Hunter Biden also moved millions of dollars from his law firm to James Biden’s and Sara Biden’s firm. Upon being questioned about the transaction, Sara Biden refused to provide supporting documentation and information to more clearly explain the activity. The bank subsequently closed the account. There’s a lot more and The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel has plowed through the sections on Joe Biden’s lies about what he knew about Hunter’s corrupt deals – you can read her great Twitter thread through this link. The key point developed by Ms. Strassel is this: Joe Biden last year: "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." That's pretty definitive, right? Yet according to testimony from former Obama official Amos Hochstein, he briefed Joe on his concerns about Hunter/Burisma in October 2015... So, Joe Biden was specifically briefed on the U.S. govs concerns about Hunter/Burisma, and he specifically brought up those concerns to his son. How does that comport with "I have never spoken"?? If Joe isn't asked about this at the debate, it will be journalistic malpractice. 2020 Election Senate report First debate Hunter Biden Joe Biden Obamacare Ukraine corruption Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Senate Finance Committee Devon Archer

Ronald Reagan was the only sitting president to write a book while in office and, fittingly, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" was a celebration of the pro-life perspective and an encouragement for the pro-life community to never give up. "Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right," Reagan wrote. "Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart," Reagan added. "As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life," Reagan wrote. "The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not." Ronald Reagan’s commitment to the principle of the right-to-life was unshakable, but as with many other conservative policy goals, fighting pro-life battles often took second place to fighting and winning Reagan’s most important battle – defeating Communism and the Soviet Union. Donald Trump has made the right-to-life one of the cornerstones of his domestic policy – and he has gone to greater lengths than any President, including Reagan, to use his executive authority to protect the right-to-life. Writing in the aftermath of President Trump’s op-ed published on lifenews.com, our friend Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, made a powerful case that Donald Trump is the most pro-life President we have ever had. We thought CHQ readers might benefit from excerpts from Fr. Pavone’s insight into the pro-life views and record of President Trump. Wrote Fr. Pavone: Four years ago, what a Trump Administration might be like was an unknown. The polls and pundits said he would not and could not win – until he won. And now we know what that meant… Within the pro-life movement, even those who were initially against Trump are heard to declare now that he is the most pro-life President we have ever had… Moving forward, then, as they launch the re-election campaign, let’s re-launch our own efforts to educate and mobilize the pro-life vote. Let’s expose the extremism of the Democrat platform and policies on abortion, especially late-term abortion and even infanticide. Fr. Pavone made those remarks the day after President Trump announced his campaign for reelection, but it isn’t just Fr. Pavone who has recognized Donald Trump’s record of action to protect the lives of the unborn. Sister Deirdre “Dede” Byrne of the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary spoke at the Wednesday night session of the Republican National Convention on abortion. She said the president’s “belief in the sanctity of life transcends politics.” And former Planned Parenthood worker turned pro-life activist Abby Johnson came to the Republican National Convention with a very simple message: if you oppose abortion, you have to vote for Donald Trump. She then delivered an impassioned plea to abortion opponents like her: “This election is a choice between two radical anti-life activists and the most pro-life president we have ever had. That is something that should compel you to action, go door-to-door, make calls, talk to your neighbors and friends, and vote on November 3.” And yesterday President Trump continued his campaign to make America pro-life again by announcing he will sign the Born Alive Executive Order. Speaking Tuesday morning at the virtual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast where he said Catholics are “amazing people, great, great people,” and thanked religious Americans for their prayers for him and his wife. He also said that he will safeguard “the eternal truth that every child, born and unborn, is made in the image of God.” “I will always protect the vital role of religion and prayer in American society, and I will always defend the sacred right to life,” Trump said. “Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve.” “This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” he added. “We are also increasing federal funding for the neonatal research to ensure that every child has the very best chance to thrive and grow.” Mary Margaret Olohan, reporting for The Daily Caller News Foundation, noted President Trump’s words come ahead of his Saturday announcement of his Supreme Court nominee. Trump will reportedly choose between federal judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. The president reportedly favors Barrett, a mother of seven who has sparked liberal anxieties through her devout Catholic faith and pro-life stances. 2020 Election William Barr abortion pro-life Donald Trump Supreme Court nomination Ruth Bader Ginsburg death senate confirmation Ronald Reagan Fr. Frank Pavone Sister Deirdre "Dede" Byrne Abby Johnson Born Alive Executive Order Amy Coney Barrett Barbara Lagoa

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday identified the following three jurisdictions that have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities: New York City; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. The Department of Justice is continuing to work to identify jurisdictions that meet the criteria set out in the President’s Memorandum and will periodically update the list of selected jurisdictions as required therein. The list was published on DOJ’s website Monday in response to President Trump’s memorandum of September 2, 2020, entitled “Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients That Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities.” “When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.” Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, along with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, issued the following joint statement in response to the DOJ designation announcement: "This is thoroughly political and unconstitutional. The President is playing cheap political games with Congressionally directed funds. Our cities are bringing communities together; our cities are pushing forward after fighting back a pandemic and facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, all despite recklessness and partisanship from the White House. What the Trump Administration is engaging in now is more of what we've seen all along: shirking responsibility and placing blame elsewhere to cover its failure." On Saturday night, a group gathered to demonstrate in downtown Portland. Police said members of the group smashed windows at a bank, restaurant and coffee shop, but no arrests have been made in the acts of vandalism. Seattle saw a staggering 525 percent spike in crime as a result of the violence that swept through the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest zone, according to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s own figures. “22 additional incidents, in person-related crime in the area, to include two additional homicides, 6 additional robberies, and 16 additional aggravated assaults (to include 2 additional non-fatal shootings),” Durkan admitted. In New York City, for the month of August 2020, there was a 166% increase in the number of shooting incidents across the city compared to the same time period last year (242 compared to 91) as the number of shootings rose in all boroughs except Staten Island. Year-to-date, through August 31, there is a +87% spike in New York citywide shooting incidents (1,014 compared to 541). The number of people murdered citywide increased to 53 compared to 36 (+ 47%) this August compared with August 2019. After Mayor Bill de Blasio cut over $1.5 billion from the New York Police Department budget, Chief of Department Terence Monahan, New York City's highest-ranking uniformed officer, said there have been thousands of NYPD retirements this year, lowering the number of officers available for duty. Criteria for evaluating each city is below: Whether a jurisdiction forbids the police force from intervening to restore order amid widespread or sustained violence or destruction. Whether a jurisdiction has withdrawn law enforcement protection from a geographical area or structure that law enforcement officers are lawfully entitled to access but have been officially prevented from accessing or permitted to access only in exceptional circumstances, except when law enforcement officers are briefly withheld as a tactical decision intended to resolve safely and expeditiously a specific and ongoing unlawful incident posing an imminent threat to the safety of individuals or law enforcement officers. Whether a jurisdiction disempowers or defunds police departments. Whether a jurisdiction unreasonably refuses to accept offers of law enforcement assistance from the Federal Government. Any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate. New York City Shootings in New York City have been on the rise since looting and protests began on or about May 28, 2020. For July 2020, shootings increased from 88 to 244, an increase of 177% over July 2019. In August 2020, shootings increased from 91 to 242, a 166% increase over August 2019. While the city faced increased unrest, gun violence, and property damage, the New York City Council cut $1 billion from NYPD’s FY21 budget. The budget resulted in the cancellation of the new police recruiting class, cuts to overtime spending, and the transfer of certain police functions, including school safety, out of the NYPD. Meanwhile, the Manhattan and Brooklyn District Attorneys have declined to prosecute charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly arising from the protests, and the District Attorneys in Queens and the Bronx have declined to prosecute other protest-related charges. Both Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo have forcefully rejected federal law enforcement support. Portland, Oregon This month, Portland marked 100 consecutive nights of protests marred by vandalism, chaos, and even killing. Those bent on violence regularly started fires, threw projectiles at law enforcement officers, and destroyed property. Numerous law enforcement officers, among others, suffered injury. Shootings increased by more than 140% in June and July 2020 compared to the same period last year. In the midst of this violence, the Portland City Council cut $15 million from the police bureau, eliminating 84 positions. Crucially, the cuts included the Gun Violence Reduction Team, which investigates shootings, and several positions from the police team that responds to emergency incidents. In August, Portland Mayor Wheeler sent a letter to President Trump expressly rejecting the Administration’s offer of federal law enforcement to stop the violent protests. Seattle, Washington For nearly a month, starting in June, the City of Seattle permitted anarchists and activists to seize six square blocks of the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, naming their new enclave the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ) and then the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” (CHOP). Law enforcement and fire fighters were precluded from entering the territory. The Seattle Police Department was ordered to abandon their precinct within the CHOP. Person-related crime in the CHOP increased 525% from the same period of time in the same area the year before, including by Mayor Durkan’s own count “two additional homicides, 6 additional robberies, and 16 additional aggravated assaults (to include 2 additional non-fatal shootings).” The CHOP was allowed to stand for nearly a month, during which time two teenagers were shot and killed in the zone. The Seattle City Council, Mayor Durkan, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee publicly rejected federal involvement in law enforcement activities within the city of Seattle. 2020 Election William Barr Democrat mayors Anarchist Jurisdictions Seattle Portland CHAZ CHOP New York City American Cities Trump memorandum Ted Wheeler Bill de Blasio Jenny Durkan police retirements

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced he will propose new legislation Monday that would create additional felonies to punish protesters who turn violent and would create severe penalties for cities that elect to defund or disband their police departments. Gov. DeSantis said his proposed legislation will impose felony-level penalties on anyone who damages property, causes injury or destroys public property during a "protest." “Recently in our country we have seen attacks on law enforcement, we’ve seen disorder and tumult in many cities,” DeSantis said according to reporting by WSNV Miami. It should surprise no one that Democratic leaders criticized the measures as a ploy to help President Donald Trump’s re-election bid. Florida’s 29 electoral votes are a key to Trump’s re-election and polls show a tight race with former Vice President Joe Biden. “The governor is attaching himself to Donald Trump’s propaganda and manufacturing a non-existent law and order crisis in Florida,” said Senate Democratic Leader Audrey Gibson. “It’s political fearmongering to bolster a president’s re-election bid.” A Tampa activist also questioned the governor’s motives. “The right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This is an attempt to chill legitimate dissent and somehow equate protests against police killing Black people with criminal activity despite the clear evidence that the protests occurring in Florida are overwhelmingly peaceful,” said Kelly Benjamin, co-founder of Tampa for Justice. DeSantis said he supports the right to hold peaceful protests. Under the proposal, felony charges could be filed against: anyone participating in an assembly that results in property damage or injury; anyone who obstructs traffic during an unauthorized protest; anyone who topples a monument or destroys public property during a violent protest. It would also be a misdemeanor to harass people at places like restaurants during a disorderly protest. “You see these videos of these innocent people eating dinner and you have these crazed lunatics just screaming at them and intimidating them,” DeSantis said. “You’re not going to do that in the state of Florida.” He is also proposing a mandatory minimum six months in jail for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a protest. People arrested during a violent protest would be held without bail until at least their first court appearance. He pointed to the ongoing protests in Portland, which he said involved the same people getting arrested and released. “They get their mugshot taken and then they get released, and it’s like a carousel. On and on it goes. Now that’s not going to happen here in Florida,” DeSantis said. The proposed legislation, called the “Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act,” would implement “clear and predictable penalties” for violent protests and create new criminal offenses. It categorizes such protests as tearing down monuments, blocking traffic, and funding violent assemblies as felonies. The bill would also slash aid and state grants to local governments who seek to cut police budgets. “We’re not going to permit local municipalities to ‘defund the police,’ or Florida will defund you,” the Governor emphasized according to reporting by Jordan Kirkland of The Capitolist. The proposed measures, outlined by the governor, Senate President-Designate Wilton Simpson and House Speaker-Designate Chris Sprowls at today’s press conference in Polk County, will be an important assignment for Republicans to tackle during the 2020 Legislative Session. “Peaceful protesting is a constitutional right, but looting and disorderly rioting are not,” said Simpson. “We will continue to stand with our brave law enforcement officers as they protect and serve. This bill is a way to ensure that all Floridians can live in a safe and secure environment. I commend Governor DeSantis for his commitment to public safety.” According to Jordan Kirkland’s reporting, provisions of the New Criminal Offenses to Combat Rioting, Looting and Violence include: A. Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons. B. Prohibition on Obstructing Roadways: 3rd degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration or violent or disorderly assembly; driver is NOT liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob. C. Prohibition on Destroying or Toppling Monuments: 2nd degree felony to destroy public property during a violent or disorderly assembly. D. Prohibition on Harassment in Public Accommodations: 1st degree misdemeanor for a participant in a violent or disorderly assembly to harass or intimidate a person at a public accommodation, such as a restaurant. E. RICO Liability: RICO liability attaches to anyone who organizes or funds a violent or disorderly assembly. Increased Penalties A. Mandatory Minimum Jail Sentence: Striking a law enforcement officer (including with a projectile) during a violent or disorderly assembly = 6 months mandatory minimum jail sentence. B. Offense Enhancements: Offense and/or sentence enhancements for: (1) throwing an object during a violent or disorderly assembly that strikes a civilian or law enforcement officer; (2) assault/battery of a law enforcement officer during a violent or disorderly assembly; and (3) participation in a violent or disorderly assembly by an individual from another state. Citizen and Taxpayer Protection Measures No “Defund the Police” Permitted: Prohibits state grants or aid to any local government that slashes the budget for law enforcement services. Victim Compensation: Waives sovereign immunity to allow a victim of a crime related to a violent or disorderly assembly to sue local government for damages where the local government is grossly negligent in protecting persons and property. Government Employment/Benefits: Terminates state benefits and makes anyone ineligible for employment by state/local government if convicted of participating in a violent or disorderly assembly. Bail: No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly; rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance. We urge CHQ readers and friends to contact their Governor and state legislators to demand they introduce and pass similar legislation. 2020 Election Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis rioters Black Lives Matter defund police property damage protests monument destruction Portland Combating Violence Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act

College football is making a comeback, despite COVID-19. Did Trump bring it about? The notion was preposterous, I thought. I’m not talking about another poll result showing Democrat nominee Joe Biden maintaining or even growing a lead nationally or in a battleground state. And it didn’t have anything to do with Grampa Joe’s outlandish insistence that Trump is a “climate arsonist” or that more suburbs (?) would be burned, flooded or blown away if he and his merry band of leftist thought and government controllers come up short in November. (As a side note, wasn’t it strange that Joe only mentioned suburbs being ruined? How about the inner cities being wrecked due to human causation, Mr. Dem nominee?) No, it was a suggestion that the return of Big Ten football might help President Donald Trump win the election. Last week, Fox News host Martha MacCallum interviewed former Notre Dame (and South Carolina, etc.) head football coach Lou Holtz about the largely midwestern conference’s reversal of its decision to forego a 2020 season due to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus and the potentially disastrous health impacts on players, fans, administrators and fellow students if the big and fast guys were permitted to hit the gridiron as promised. To refresh your memory, the Big Ten’s powers-that-be announced last month that the conference wouldn’t play this season and would perhaps look to postpone the games until springtime when there supposedly would be less chance of being afflicted with the virus. Other major college leagues followed suit, though several, including the imminently powerful Southeastern Conference (SEC) and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) indicated they would play on with modified game slates and lots and lots of precautionary measures. In other words, the complete cancellation singled out the Big Ten as being overly cautious and reactionary for hastily scuttling their big-time popular moneymaker. All along, President Trump advocated for playing the season, reasoning it could be done safely. Last week, the Big Ten poohbahs changed course, which many hinted was a political “win” for the president as well as the schools themselves. Jason King wrote at Outkick, “Almost certainly, Wednesday’s development will impact Trump’s approval rating in the Midwest. The Big Ten includes Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, three states that Trump narrowly won in the 2016 election. “Now, during one of the darkest times in recent American history, he’s helped bring back excitement and energy to those states when they needed it most. “Maybe Trump’s phone call to [Big Ten commissioner Kevin] Warren played no role in the reversal. His critics can make that argument. But what about the empathy he showed frustrated Big Ten parents and athletes? Trump’s public involvement in the Big Ten negotiations surely inspired Ohio State parents and Nebraska athletes to keep fighting the Big Ten school presidents.” Yes, Nebraska will be safely in the Trump column on Nov. 3, and Ohio likely will be too. Trump won the Buckeye State by eight points in 2016, and the ultimate swing state’s not even being mentioned as a possible Biden pickup this year. Media pundits get all excited whenever there’s a Biden-friendly survey coming out of Florida, North Carolina and/or the midwestern states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because they’re all places where Trump surprised people. Maybe not North Carolina and Florida as much as the others, since they weren’t formerly considered solid bricks in the blue wall. But King’s argument largely echoed Holtz’s response on Fox News last Wednesday. For as much criticism as Trump’s endured from the antagonistic establishment media, here’s one instance where his “rhetoric” brought a good result -- and he’s even getting a little reluctant praise for it. To have some in the reporting class acknowledge his influence is very encouraging -- and welcome. The president wasn’t just pushing the schools to bring back football for his own sake, either -- he recognizes how important playing the game is to millions of Americans all across the country. Fall is synonymous with college football. The upcoming games represent another bit of “normalcy” returns when the ball is teed up even if there aren’t tens of thousands of screaming fans in the bleachers and marching bands blaring the fight songs. And there are still the “social justice” issues with players protesting, but we’ll deal with that another day. The action also perhaps reveals something more important in the political sense. By having the Big Ten reverse course so relatively quickly, it shows that attitudes on the CCP virus might be changing after six months of lockdowns and establishment fostered panic. With the NBA winding down its playoffs inside its formulated “bubble” in Florida, the abbreviated Major League Baseball regular calendar also coming to a close without hindrance and the NFL just launching its season a week and a half ago, people are noticing that there haven’t been reports of major outbreaks in quite a while. Could it be that testing is more accurate now and leagues are forced to deal with the reality that the danger from the virus was just a tad (or very) overblown? The football huddles aren’t comprised of senior citizens from a care facility and the sick have already been given permission to opt out of anything having to do with the virus. Colleges have reinstated in-person classes (they’d better, or what use are they?) and the evening news has largely shifted to covering the presidential candidates and the non-stop back-and-forth of campaigning. The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last week and the Supreme Court fight add another element. Where’d the virus go? Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, all Democrats and the media would have everyone thinking the invisible Chinese killer is everywhere still and as dangerous as it was back in March and April. But even if this were true, which it’s not, where are all the people being levelled by it? Blue state governors and mayors would have their residents confess that continued lockdowns and mask mandates have slowed the progress of the dang thing, but is it real? In most states, businesses have reopened and life has returned to relative routine. Here in the touristy Williamsburg, Virginia, students now roam the Williams & Mary campus again and the colonial city is open and receiving visitors. Hotels and motels are operating with a percentage of normal clientele but at least there are many more signs of life than there were months ago. Is King right, will college football help Trump win in the Big Ten states? The Big Ten’s decision to re-up on football was financially, not politically, driven It's a nice thought to claim President Trump’s say-so helped move the Big Ten’s administrators to give in to common sense and sound logic. But here’s thinking it likely was a financially forced reality that resulted in a reversal just weeks after they’d decided to hang up the cleats for the season. This isn’t downplaying Trump’s cheerleading in the slightest. As the possessor and user of the world’s largest bully pulpit, anytime Trump says or tweets something it draws coverage. There probably were a number of factors leading to football being reinstated. First and foremost, as noted in the previous section, the virus is being downgraded as a major threat to people in the college age group. I don’t have the exact numbers, but only a comparative handful of young folks have perished from COVID-19 worldwide. The virus is quite dangerous to the threatened categories, but college kids aren’t in one of them (neither are young kids, but the teachers unions hold more sway where they’re concerned). Two, the survival of college sports depends on bringing in football dollars. It's a poorly kept secret that the so-called “revenue” sports -- football and men’s basketball -- provide seed money for all the other sports. Of course, just like in politics, there are major donors and boosters, but the entire system is heavily dependent on making some money in their endeavors. If the teams aren’t playing, they’re not on TV and fans aren’t in the stadiums (which it looks like they won’t be anyway). The accounts receivable half of the ledger is pretty darn empty. Meanwhile, sports-related expenses don’t cease. College scholarships require funding. Athletes have housing costs, food costs, training costs, etc. Coaches are still receiving their salaries. Facilities need to be maintained. Big sponsors are probably still chipping in their share, but there’s no way schools can sustain the deficit for long. What are they, the federal government? Can’t the federal reserve just print them some cash? Third, the season has already started for those conferences that decided to keep going and… no catastrophe ensued. I’m not watching a lot of sports these days, for a variety of reasons -- most of them “protest” related -- but I did catch a handful of plays from the games that are going on. It looked like, well, college football. It was weird having piped in crowd noise and cardboard cutouts in the stands, but other than that, the atmosphere felt “normal.” Couldn’t the Big Ten just as readily bring in their teams, pay the officials and kick the ball around just like the schools that didn’t quit before they even tried? As soon as the conference overseers saw Chicago-area-based Notre Dame playing, they must’ve thought, ‘If they can do it, why can’t we?’ Lastly, time is short for these schools and football programs. The best players are only obligated to stay three years (there are four years of eligibility on scholarships and a fifth “redshirt” year if the guy needs additional time to mature and succeed). Therefore, a good many kids would’ve played their final games last year if the Big Ten didn’t have a season. There goes all the time and effort invested into those players, and, as I said, they’re the best ones on the field. They’ll go pro without a second thought. Again, it was a financial call. If the schools’ on-field winning percentage was threatened, so would be their future bottom line. Big Ten members weren’t about to surrender their economic wellbeing to something as flighty and unprovable as the CCP virus. If players do test positive, they’ll be held out, just like in other parts of society. And they should stay away from older folks and sick people even if they feel fine. It’s really not that hard to fathom. Now we’ll see if the Pac 12 follows the Big Ten’s example. Some athletes are already trying to get the “let’s play” movement rolling. Time will tell. We’re starting to see big cracks in the BLM protests/“social justice” foundation It didn’t receive nearly as much media coverage as the kneeling/arms locking “protests,” but a couple brave NFL players fought back against the enforced conformity of the politically correct thought-controllers. Brooke Pryor reported at ESPN.com, “Steelers captain Maurkice Pouncey … announced his intention to make his own choice about what name to put on the back of his helmet, becoming the second player to break from the team's decision to wear the name of police shooting victim Antwon Rose Jr. on helmets for the 2020 season. “’I was given limited information on the situation regarding Antwon, and I was unaware of the whole story surrounding his death and what transpired during the trial following the tragedy,’ Pouncey, a vocal advocate for the police communities in Pittsburgh and in his Florida hometown, wrote in an Instagram post. ‘I should have done more research to fully understand what occurred in its entirety. “’... Make no mistake, I am against racism and I believe the best thing I can do is to continue helping repair relationships between the police and their communities.’” I almost couldn’t believe it when I saw it, an athlete speaking common sense. Pouncey is a bad dude, so it’d doubtful anyone’s likely to intimidate him into doing something he doesn’t believe in. Ditto for Steelers tackle Al Villanueva, a former Army ranger who similarly donned a different name on the back of his helmet to buck the Black Lives Matter trend. Villanueva made headlines in the past when he refused to stay in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem, standing on the field by himself to show his patriotism. There are two sides to every story -- and not everyone considers Rodney King, George Floyd and Jacob Blake as heroes because of circumstances that the justice system should sort out. The actions of the Big Ten Conference and a couple NFL players aren’t likely to figure prominently in this year’s election, though the happenings of the past few weeks indicates there may be some easing of the panic surrounding the CCP virus. If this is the case, Democrats will have to run on the issues… a place where they can’t hope to compete. 2020 Election Joe Biden Big Ten Football Donald Trump COVID-19 coronavirus NFL protests Al Villanueva Pittsburgh Steelers lockdowns

While the liberal establishment and DC’s Republican bootlickers wail and gnash their teeth over the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I won’t be among the mourners. I wish death on no one, but I don’t consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be an “icon.” Only if icons are now painted to commemorate a thoroughly evil person would Ginsburg – whose jurisprudence led to the death of millions of unborn children – deserve such hagiography. As the inimitable Kurt Schlichter put it in a January 2019 column for Townhall: It’s not her legal legacy, which is an undistinguished mish-mash of liberal goo once you get past some decent work on women’s rights a half century ago. Her legendary status is partly that she’s a leftist, and partly that she’s so tough. She’s become a secular saint to for libs, proving once again that when you reject religion you have to fill up your spiritual void with something. And so Justice Ginsburg filled the spiritual void of women on the Left with the blood sacrifice of abortion. Out of Ginsburg’s numerous opinions and dicta enshrining the killing of children as a constitutional right has grown a movement to celebrate or “shout your abortion.” Because in Ginsburg’s world abortion was not the taking of human life, it is a perfectly normal “choice.” “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four-day confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.” And as the vile Far Left abortion website The Lily said, Justice Ginsburg is not dead: You can see glimpses of her in their eyes as they [abortion providers] remind patients that despite attempts by GOP lawmakers to use a public health crisis to stifle abortion access, abortion providers will continue to show up for them. Someone will always be there. You can talk to her when you call the National Network of Abortion Funds to find a clinic that provides abortion care in your area. You will hear the echoes of her defiant voice — the voice of a history-making giant — in the careful instructions provided by an abortion funds employee telling you where to go, what to expect and how you can procure abortion funds, transportation or child care, should you need it. You’ll feel her as you are escorted toward the doors of a clinic by a stranger in a brightly colored vest holding an even more brightly colored umbrella. And said The Lily, Justice Ginsburg is the nurse practitioner who uses the correct pronouns when preparing a trans man for his surgical abortion at 11 weeks gestation. Justice Ginsburg is often lauded as a fighter for equal rights, but that was a lie. And the truth will out. As George Weigel wrote in an article for the Ethics & Public Policy Center, sometimes, the veil slips: It certainly did in a recent New York Times Magazine interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There, in the course of relating her surprise at the Court’s 1980 decision upholding the Hyde Amendment (which banned federal funding for abortion), Justice Ginsburg had the following to say about legal history, social policy, and political surprises: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.” (emphasis mine) Turn that phrase over in your mind — “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Rather odd, wouldn’t you say — odd in itself, and odd in light of such 20th century horrors as the Holocaust and the Ukrainian terror famine, justified by their perpetrators on precisely such grounds? Then there is Justice Ginsburg’s rationale for Roe vs. Wade and its judicially created license to abortion-on-demand: Roe was intended to clear the legal path to federal funding of abortions for poor — read “black” — people, who clearly loom large among those “populations we don’t want to have too many of.” Liberals will lionize Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a crusader for “equal rights,” but the truth is what she fought for was the right to rid the country of those she and the other members of the liberal sisterhood consider to be populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg is laid to rest, I won’t mourn or celebrate, but I will pray that she receives the reward in the afterlife that her record in the here and now merits. 2020 Election Joe Biden Supreme Court list Ruth Bader Ginsburg death Donald Trump Trump Supreme Court list Amy Coney Barrett senate confirmation Barbara Lagoa presidential debates Cleveland Hyde Amendment Catholic vote

Democrat Joe Biden has built his half-century in politics largely on the myth that he is a faithful Catholic with working class roots. In reality Biden is neither a faithful Catholic, nor a friend of America’s blue-collar citizens. Indeed, two of Joe Biden’s principle campaign positions are that taxpaying Catholics must be forced to be complicit in the sin of abortion by repealing the Hyde Amendment prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion and taxpaying Catholics must likewise be forced to be complicit in the sin of transgenderism by being forced to subsidize taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgery. Here is a short Fed Up PAC video on what Saint Theresa of Calcutta said about abortion. Joe Biden’s advocacy of abortion, same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism put him in direct conflict, not with some ephemeral policies of church administration, but with the fundamental precepts of Catholicism that make a Catholic a Catholic. As Cardinal Burke said, Joe Biden is “not in communion with Christ,” or his church. And because Joe Biden rejects the fundamental precepts of Catholicism that make a Catholic a Catholic, Democrats have embraced him as their candidate for president. We contrast the treatment Biden gets from the anti-Catholic Left and their media allies with the treatment former Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett received when she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. During Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings, her family's membership in People of Praise was the subject of a dark New York Times article, which described the organization as a "small, tightly knit Christian group." And California’s Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein went directly after Barrett’s Catholic faith during her confirmation hearing. Feinstein charged that Barrett has “a long history of believing [her] religious beliefs should prevail,” and added “when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” Liberals have since tried to explain away Feinstein’s odd phrasing, which had the quality of a nativist, anti-Papist tract from a century ago observed James S. Robbins in an op-ed for USAToday. These days, said Robbins, liberals have taken to portraying people in public life who exhibit almost any kind of faith orientation as dangerous extremists. In a discussion of the high court when Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, CNN contributor Dean Obeidallah maintained that “there are people who want to impose Christian Sharia law in this country.” It was an ironic comment, observed Robbins, since progressives would be thrilled to support a Muslim court nominee whose jurisprudence was informed by actual Sharia. And the Daily Beast told us breathlessly that President Trump is “carrying out the agenda of a small, secretive network of extremely conservative Catholic activists” who supposedly control the nomination process, supported by a network of dark-money fundraisers. That the Daily Beast, a Washington Post property, would promote that kind of Anti-Catholic bigotry shows you how close to the surface of the Left such attitudes are and the nomination to the Supreme Court of practicing Catholic Judge Brett Kavanaugh simply brought them back out in the open. Catholics are the largest bloc of swing voters in America. Historically, Catholics have been marginal Democrats, swinging to the GOP for Ronald Reagan and other candidates who have wooed them on the cultural issues, so the 11-point swing in the Catholic vote from Romney in 2012 to Trump in 2016 was arguably the margin in the top four battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. In the top four 2016 battleground states Trump won Wisconsin (where 31 percent identify as Catholic) by 22,177 votes. In Pennsylvania (where 27.4 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 67,416 votes. In Florida (where 26 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 134,000 votes and in Michigan (where 23 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 10,704 votes. We don’t know if President Trump is going to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, we hope he does, even though we question whether having that nomination fight prior to the election is a good idea. But if President Trump does decide to proceed with the nomination, two months of Democrats bashing Judge Amy Coney Barrett for living her life according to the tenets of her Catholic faith would provide a stark contrast between the public life of a faithful Catholic and that of nominal Catholic Joe Biden. It would show what Joe Biden’s party really thinks of Catholics and solidify Democrats as the Anti-Catholic Party in the eyes of millions of Catholic voters, potentially moving them permanently into the GOP in the same way that Southern Evangelical Protestants moved from Democrat to Republican in the 1970s and 80s. 2020 Election Joe Biden Supreme Court list Ruth Bader Ginsburg death Donald Trump Trump Supreme Court list Amy Coney Barrett senate confirmation Barbara Lagoa presidential debates Cleveland Hyde Amendment Catholic vote