Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist radio host who Donald Trump says has an “amazing” reputation, devoted a segment of his radio program today to ranting about everything from President Obama to Satan-worship to eating babies.
After expressing outrage that “Islamic sleeper cell” Obama, who is “running jihad operations all over the Middle East and Africa,” is president, Jones shifted the subject to “Christian-murdering scum that run giant death factories keeping babies alive and selling their body parts.” Jones alleged that he has videos of supporters of these “death factories” yelling “Hail Satan! We want to eat babies.” The baby-eating theme recurred multiple times in the rant, with Jones quoting a debunked rumor that there is “Pepsi with baby flavoring in it.”
Jones also alleged that George Soros is leading a plot to install a “Stasi control grid” throughout America. According to Jones, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are indoctrinating the police force and infiltrating the military, using “university communists” as their operatives.
American Family Association official Sandy Rios doesn’t see how supporting Donald Trump’s call to discriminate against Muslims conflicts with the Religious Right’s supposed commitment to “religious liberty.”
You see, according to Rios, Islam is not a religion.
Rios, an American Family Radio host who also serves as the AFA’s director of governmental affairs, criticized Dick Cheney today for his condemnation of Trump’s plan, insisting on her radio program that Muslims are different from other groups of people because many, if not all, of them are “enemies of your country and of the Christian faith who are bound and determined to murder and destroy and to subjugate you.”
“Islam is a political system, it is tiny bit the worship of Allah and a whole lot a political system, much like communism,” she said.
Rios also told listeners this morning that it is only “common sense” to bar Muslim immigration to the U.S. until, in Trump’s words, “our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Urging congressional Republicans to specifically block the resettlement of Syrian refugees, Rios said, “Donald Trump, as far I’m concerned, is right. Until Congress can figure it out, we should have a moratorium on bringing more Muslims into the country.”
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah claims in a column today that when then-candidate Barack Obama said in 2008 that his presidential campaign was “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” by helping working families wrest power away from Wall Street and CEOs, he really meant that he would be aiding terrorism.
Farah writes that the policy of the Obama administration has been “facilitating, enabling and empowering” terrorist attacks, and wise Americans are “arming themselves in record numbers” to thwart the president’s “subversive, treasonous policy.”
“Obama is tearing the nation apart,” he adds. “What else do you suppose is the endgame?”
It’s clear the federal government has no plans to offer protection to American citizens against future attacks by jihadis. Just the opposite. The government is facilitating, enabling and empowering them. That’s the policy.
It’s becoming apparent the plan represents nothing less than to terrorize the American public into total submission to government. The very word “Islam,” by the way, means “submission.” How convenient. How coincidental.
More than a few Americans have noticed the trend. They are arming themselves in record numbers. And this is a smart thing to do.
But it’s hardly a substitute for reining in the power of Washington, which has become the No. 1 enemy of the citizenry.
If you never quite understood what Obama meant when he threatened to begin “the fundamental transformation of America,” now maybe you get it.
It’s the most divisive, subversive, treasonous policy of any president in American history. Sadly, the entire Democratic Party establishment supports it. And, even more tragically, the entire Republican Party establishment does nothing to stop it.
The Obama administration is now in incitement mode.
It would like nothing better than for Americans who recognize the danger to turn to ugliness, revenge, violence, hatred. Sadly, no one may be able to stop such incidents – and Obama surely knows that. Divide and conquer is the strategy. Obama is tearing the nation apart. What else do you suppose is the endgame?
WASHINGTON – Yesterday GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” after previously saying the country should consider closing mosques and establishing a database to track Muslims in the U.S.
People For the American Way President Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“Trump’s reckless anti-Muslim bigotry has reached a new low. Shutting out a whole group of people because of their religion sounds a lot more like fascism than like a legitimate policy proposal. It’s despicable, and it’s the opposite of what our country’s values are all about.
“And it’s not just Trump. From Ben Carson’s remarks that he would not support a Muslim president to Ted Cruz’s proposal to welcome Christian refugees – but not Muslim refugees – fleeing violence in Syria, GOP presidential candidates seem increasingly comfortable with overt anti-Muslim sentiment.
“People of all religious backgrounds deserve to feel safe and welcome in our country, one that was founded on the idea of religious freedom. Instead, what we’re seeing so far this election is a GOP field fighting to prove they are the most anti-Muslim candidate. Even for the Tea Party driven GOP, it’s disgraceful and dangerous.”
People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch monitors and documents the activities of the right-wing movement. For coverage of Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric and the ongoing work of right-wing anti-Muslim organizations, please visit www.rightwingwatch.org.
The New York Times came out with a story yesterday about why ISIS leaders are hoping that the U.S. sends in troops to battle them in order to fulfill their prophecy of waging an apocalyptic showdown with American forces in Syria, where the true forces of Islam will defeat Western crusaders.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum may want to read the report and similarobservations from other ISIS experts, as he told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on his “Washington Watch” program yesterday that ISIS is glad that President Obama opposes sending ground troops into Syria and that he has denied that the terrorist group represents Muslims at large.
The GOP presidential candidate said that the U.S. should in fact “identify and accept the fact” that ISIS is “an Islamic Sunni caliphate” and then “invade their land.”
He went on to say that ISIS is not perverting the Islamic faith but “really is an orthodox interpretation of Islam.”
Today on “The 700 Club,” televangelist Pat Robertson said that people should not view Islam as a religious faith since it is a “political system masquerading as a religion” and is really “an aggressive, military, disciplined” group “bent on world domination.”
“It isn’t a ‘religion’ as such,” he said, claiming that unlike Christianity, Islam is obsessed with violently converting people throughout the world.
“We’re not dealing with a religion,” Robertson continued. “People say, ‘Oh, it’s just terrible, you shouldn’t discriminate one religion versus the other.’ Well, yes you can if one religion is actually a political system that is intent on dominating you and killing you. Christianity isn’t intent on dominating and killing you, it just isn’t.”
He said more people would agree with him once we start “telling it like it is.”
In a column for the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on Sunday, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon speculated that a large number of Americans believe that President Obama is secretly a Muslim because “he is always so sensitive about criticism of Islam” and “clearly … identifies more with Islam than any other religion ‘for all practical purposes.’” This, Wildmon wrote, explains why the president “defends Islam any chance he gets.”
Wildmon went on to warn readers to be wary of their Muslim neighbors because terrorists “often blend into western countries well because an essential part of jihad is to deceive the infidels into believing you are a ‘nice guy’ until the day you are ready to strike.”
Given this strategy, he asked, “how in the world are Americans supposed to tell the good Muslims from the bad Muslims?”
According to a September CNN poll, 29 percent of the general American public believes that he is. Every time there is an act of Islamic jihad like in San Bernardino, California, this week and Obama pretends there is no connection to Islam and terrorism it only causes more people to consider this possibility.
Why he is always so sensitive about criticism of Islam? My view is clearly Obama identifies more with Islam than any other religion “for all practical purposes.” This would explain why he defends Islam any chance he gets. In fact, there were news reports on Thursday that his administration was putting pressure on the FBI not to label what happened in California “terrorism” despite all the evidence mounting that points to the fact that it was. Evidence like building bombs in their garage, subscribing to jihadi materials, etc.
It bears repeating that while all Muslims are not terrorists, almost without exception all the terrorists are Muslims. Why is that? There is rarely any context given to what is going on with the jihad movement wreaking havoc around the world. The news media just moves from one attack to the next. Many westerners are ignorant of why these people continue to do what they do. And if they are indeed perverting Islam – and Obama and others say that they are – then tell us exactly how and call on the true Islamic leaders and countries of the world to please stand up and join those of us trying to defeat these “radicals.” I’ve not heard Obama one time call for Muslim leaders to take the lead on confronting this ideology that has “hijacked” their religion.
Those committed to Islamic jihad are not crazy people and they often blend into western countries well because an essential part of jihad is to deceive the infidels into believing you are a “nice guy” until the day you are ready to strike. That is what happened with Farook. In fact, the L.A. Times interviewed some who worked with him and here is what they wrote: “Co-workers told The Times they were shocked to hear Farook’s name linked to the shooting. Two who were in the restroom when the bullets began to fly said he was quiet and polite, with no obvious grudges.” They also described him as “very religious.”
So given how these jihadists operate, as we saw in Boston, Chattanooga and other places – how in the world are Americans supposed to tell the good Muslims from the bad Muslims?
Maybe President Obama will call a conference of world-wide leaders to condemn jihad and hold the event in Mecca. He just did that in Paris to combat climate change. Maybe he will do that and rally the Islamic world to fight this jihadi ideology within its own societies. Yeah. Maybe…
Gaffney, like Trump, promotes birther conspiracy theories along with bizarre claims that Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law advocates are taking over the U.S. government and both political parties, touted his poll as “an insight into how the Muslims that we polled felt and it’s worrisome.”
“Fortunately, Donald Trump, like you, I’m not endorsing him, I’m not speaking of his fitness, I’m just saying that in response to events that have taken place in this country and elsewhere in recent months has recognized what I think most Americans recognize, that we don’t actually want more jihadists in this country,” he said, insisting that Americans “don’t think augmenting them willy-nilly in the name of some kind of sense that they are entitled to come here is a sound policy.”
He continued: “We have called for a moratorium on the introduction of still more Muslims, particularly from countries with a tradition of Islamic supremacism.”
Gaffney wasn’t alone. Fox News pundit Todd Starnes also defend the GOP presidential front-runner plan:
So the answer is to allow unfettered Muslim immigration — and just pray nothing happens?
Santorum told Stephen Bannon on the SiriusXM program “Breitbart News Daily” this morning that he has “proposed actual concrete things in our immigration law that would have not the effect of banning all Muslims, but a lot of them.”
“We start changing our immigration laws, we can deal with this problem,” he said. “I think the way Trump has proposed it, it may have some constitutional infirmity. We can do it in a more practical way than the way that Donald Trump is suggesting.”
Santorum also told Bannon that while he is considered an “enemy of ISIS,” the terrorist group doesn’t “call President Obama an enemy” because he “creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”
“The reason they called me an enemy was because I identified them accurately and said why they had to be defeated, just like I explained to you,” he said. “To them, that made me an enemy, because I was someone out there telling the truth which will, if the American public and the West would believe it, would lead to the destruction of ISIS. They don’t call President Obama an enemy because President Obama creates the obfuscation, creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”
“They’re very happy that the president’s out there trying to convince the Muslim world that they’re illegitimate,” he added.
The lawmaker, Al Baldasaro, also said the chairwoman of the state’s Republican Party should resign for criticizing Trump’s remarks, reported WMUR:
State Republican Party chairwoman Jennifer Horn said Monday that Donald Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States is “un-American.”
But two top Trump supporters in New Hampshire said the controversial Republican presidential frontrunner is right.
State Reps. Al Baldasaro of Londonderry and Steve Stepanek of Amherst said Horn should resign her post for criticizing Trump because she is not being neutral in the presidential primary.
But Baldasaro, a co-chair of Trump’s state veterans coalition, said Trump is “100 percent right” and Horn is wrong.
“What he’s saying is no different than the situation during World War II, when we put the Japanese in camps,” Baldasaro, a Marine veteran, said. “The people who attacked innocent people in Paris came through open borders. From a military mind standpoint, all Donald Trump is saying is to do what needs to be done until we get a handle on how to do background checks.”
Baldasaro said a petition is being circulated among some New Hampshire Republicans to convene a special Republican State Committee meeting to call on Horn to resign or to try to remove her from office. He said he signed a such a petition on Monday night.
“She needs to resign because she has no clue,” Baldasaro said. “She’s my friend, but I have to separate that from the Republican Party.”
Trump himself said that he wouldn’t have ruled out supporting internment camps for Japanese-Americans had he been around at the time:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told TIME that he does not know whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
“I would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer,” he said during a recent interview in his office in New York City. “I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”
Trump added that he believes wartime sometimes requires difficult choices. “It’s a tough thing. It’s tough,” he said. “But you know war is tough. And winning is tough. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We’re not a strong country anymore. We’re just so off.”
Pressed numerous times during an appearance Monday morning on MSNBC to say whether or not the internment violated American values, Trump refused to respond.
Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones doubled down today on his claim that the San Bernardino shooting was a false flag attack, speaking with fellow conspiracy theorist Steve Pieczenik about why they believe the tragedy was an Obama administration plot to push gun control.
Pieczenik said it was “absolutely impossible” for shooter Tashfeen Malik to have carried out the attack, claiming that the attack, like the Sandy Hook school shooting, was staged in order to advance “gun control for Obama.”
“His last wish and dying wish, may well be dying wish, is that we have gun control in the United States,” Pieczenik said of President Obama, accusing the president of committing “criminal acts against the United States.”
He continued: “We do not have one year left to live out this administration.”
Pieczenik went on to say that the shooting was designed to deflect attention from the controversy surrounding the delayed release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video, claiming that Obama takes orders from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
“What we need to do is to initiate a referendum where we will ask the president to step down,” he said. “I do not want an assassination, what I want is a referendum where the people say we can no longer wait for a year, we do not want anyone else and we will want to nominate, by choice, Trump. Either we have the elections now or we don’t have the elections, we do not have one more year.”
He even claimed that ISIS leaders work for the U.S. government while “we create the false flags.” Jones added that the administration “brought in” terrorists to “have them attack us and then take our guns and then restrict internet free speech.”
Less happy about the development were the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and the Center for Military Readiness’ Elaine Donnelly, who spoke about the policy change on Gaffney’s “Secure Freedom Radio” program on Friday.
Gaffney added that such developments are “so clearly at odds with the concepts that are absolutely central to the military’s whole raison d’etre, and yet that’s being thrown to the side in favor of gender quotas and lower standards and otherwise accommodating the ‘Lean In’ agenda.”
“There will be a price to pay,” Donnelly agreed. “Women will pay the price, unfortunately. Men will as well. Our national security will suffer as a result of this decision.”
After floating the idea of mosque closures, being open to a government database to track all Muslims and making false claims about Muslim-Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks, Donald Trump is now calling for a sweeping ban on all Muslim immigration to the U.S. Trump proposed the immigration ban in a press statement today, claiming that Muslims harbor a “hatred” of America and of human life.
To back up this assertion, Trump cited an unscientific online poll from the Center for Security Policy, a radical group led by conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, that the group claimed demonstrated anti-American views among American Muslims. Experts have dismissed the poll as significantly flawed and dishonest.
While Trump’s statement implies that he is interested in “preventing Muslim immigration,” his new plan may even bar tourism as it calls for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Trump’s GOP presidential rival Rand Paul made a similar suggestion on Glenn Beck’s program today, saying that “until we have a better handle on who is already here and whether the people here are obeying our laws, I’d just stop immigration from the Middle East.” Paul also called for increased scrutiny from European travelers because too many people who live in the continent are “against Western civilization.”
Donald Trump has recently been praisingRussian President Vladimir Putin for his military intervention in Syria, claiming that he got to know Putin while filming a “60 Minutes” segment for which the two gave separate interviews that took place on separate continents.
“I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS,” Trump said back in October. The next month, Trump claimed that “Russia’s been amazing in what they're doing because they’re fighting to win,” again saying that it’s “wonderful” that Putin is “really bombing the hell out of them.”
On Saturday, Roy Gutman of McClatchy described how Russian airstrikes have “benefited the Islamic State” and are helping the group gain territory in Syria as it attacks anti-regime rebels, who, along with civilians and relief agencies, bear the brunt of Russian attacks.
In the days since Turkey downed a Russian warplane that flew into its airspace, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered a bombing campaign that’s destroyed bakeries and relief convoys in northern Syria, cutting the flow of food to more than half a million civilians.
The result has been a complete halt in relief operations by major humanitarian aid groups, all of which operate out of Turkey. It’s also brought the region to the brink of further catastrophe as hundreds of thousands of residents are caught in the crossfire and are unable to flee their homes.
The stepped-up Russian bombing campaign has had another effect, rebels and aid workers say, allowing the Islamic State to move into areas that it previously had not controlled close to the Turkish border.
The Russian air campaign, combined with a ground offensive by Iranian and Syrian government forces, also benefited the Islamic State, which reportedly has advanced as moderate rebel forces fell back to meet the Iranian push.
And while moderate Arab rebel forces, backed by U.S. and Turkish air strikes, have conquered several villages controlled by the Islamic State close to the Turkish border, the main gains in the fighting of the past 10 days have been made by the Islamic State, observers say.
Gutman goes on to detail how Russian airstrikes have pounded rebels who are fighting ISIS near the city of Azaz.
Unlike the Russian air campaign, the U.S.-led coalition has actually targeted ISIS with over 8,000 airstrikes. And Trump, displaying both his propensity for stroking his ego and making false claims, is trying to take the credit.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, responded last month to the Obama administration’s efforts to enforce transgender rights in public schools by declaring that he doesn’t want his young daughters “taking showers with little boys.”
Asked by Robert George in a November 25 interview on the EWTN network about a Department of Education ruling that an Illinois school district should have provided a transgender girl access to the girls’ locker room at her school, Cruz said it was a “ridiculous” decision made by “zealots.”
“Well, look,” he said. “This is ridiculous. It shows just how radical and extreme the current administration is. You know, I’m the father of two little girls. Caroline and Catherine are seven and five. I don’t want my daughters taking showers with little boys, I don’t want them when they’re in junior high or high school. And it’s absurd, no parents do. And these are zealots.”
He then pivoted to his pledge to do away with the Common Core standards initiative and abolish the Department of Education entirely.
Mike Huckabee onceagaininsisted that Supreme Court rulings are simply opinions that carry no legal authority if not for the “good will” and “assent” of the legislative and executive branches, this time making the case for defiance of the top court in an interview with Robert George on the Catholic television network EWTN this weekend.
If elected president, Huckabee said, he would “absolutely decline” to enforce the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision and order the Justice Department to “protect in every way the rights of those citizens who joined in disagreeing.”
“It’s a matter of saving our republic to say that as president, we’re not going to accept this decision, we will ignore it and we will not enforce it,” Huckabee said, adding that he would only recognize same-sex marriages in states that legalize same-sex marriage, or polygamy, for that matter, “by a vote of its people.”
When George asked if conservatives then “couldn’t criticize” President Obama for acting lawlessly “if he refused to enforce” recent Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance reform and gun control, Huckabee responded, “Well, no.” He said that if that were to happen, Congress should then exercise its power to impeach the president or defund the executive branch, seeming to open himself up to impeachment if he decided to defy the courts on same-sex marriage.
In an interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George on the Catholic television network EWTN last month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that the president should defy the Supreme Court’s “fundamentally illegitimate” decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage, which he compared to “Nazi decrees.”
George, the co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a mentor of Cruz’s, likened the court’s “tragic mistake” in Obergefell to infamous Supreme Court decisions including Dred Scott, asking Cruz, “Was Lincoln right to defy the court on [Dred Scott] and would you, as president, do that with the Obergefell decision?”
“Lincoln was absolutely right, I agree with President Lincoln,” Cruz responded. “And courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. A court interprets the law, a court applies the law, but courts don’t make law.”
Saying that it is “profoundly wrong” to refer to the gay marriage decision as the law of the land, Cruz said, “I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate, it was lawless, it was not based on the Constitution.”
Cruz then brought up remarks that Justice Anthony Kennedy made recently at Harvard Law School, in which he discussed when it is the duty of public officials to resign rather than carry out laws that they think are unjust, such as in the case of opponents of marriage equality. Kennedy used the extreme example of judges who resigned under Nazi rule, saying that whether they can morally carry out their official duties is “a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves” and that “great respect … ought to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong in order to make a point.”
This, Cruz declared, amounted to Kennedy comparing “the Supreme Court of the United States to the Nazis.”
“This isn’t me calling them the Nazis,” he said, “this is Justice Kennedy calling the court on which he serves, calling the opinion that he wrote, analogizing that to the Nazi decrees that we must obey.”
George interjected: “Just to be clear, surely Justice Kennedy was not embracing Nazism.”
Cruz hesitated and smiled. “He drew the analogy,” he said, “and the obvious implication was just as you were forced to obey the Nazis, you’re forced to obey us as well … even if we are tyrannical and oppressive. Now, look, certainly he wasn’t embracing all of the horrible things the Nazis did but to make that analogy, that is essentially saying, we wear the jackboot and you must obey us.”
In a blog post on Priests for Life’s website on Friday, the group’s director of African American outreach, Alveda King, insisted that there is a need to “connect some dots” between terrorism and legal abortion, which she called terrorism “in the womb.”
“Terrorism, be it in the womb, from distant shores, behind the domestic walls of our homes, or wherever it occurs, terrorism by any other name is still the same,” she wrote.
Writing that “Killing is fast becoming the choice many people are ‘choosing’ in order to fix their problems,” King asked, “Is there any wonder that mass killings are occurring on a regular, almost daily, basis?”
What we are missing here is the not so subtle connection to what on the surface seems to be random violent outbreaks in the atmosphere. Yet as Rev. Pavone points out, the problems with the Colorado Springs shooting is not the pro-lifers referring to abortion as murder but rather the abortion industry’s utter lack of respect for life and choosing its solution to solving someone’s problem by killing their child.
Although the Colorado Springs shooting was abortion related, we should consider that there is a common denominator; an utter lack of respect for life. Whether there are various underlying causes for the lack of disregard of the rights of others, consequent actions lead to outcomes such as these mass shootings, high abortion rates, high levels of incarceration, suicide and many other threats to the human family.
Terrorism, be it in the womb, from distant shores, behind the domestic walls of our homes, or wherever it occurs, terrorism by any other name is still the same.
Killing has been a part of humanity since Cain killed Abel. Throughout history humans have been killing for greed, convenience, emotional pain, and the like in order to acquire what others have; whether it be land, money, power, or [and we can fill in the blanks here].
Human life has long been devalued to the point that life has often become disposable as long as we can’t see the danger to our own. Herein lies the Catch 22: we disregard others to save ourselves – sadly not realizing that we are universally connected to our human family.
With the passage of time America has joined the rest of the world in rubber stamping the killing of our babies in the womb, as well as the sick, the elderly and in alarmingly increasing numbers, the poor.
With this acceptance of devaluation of humanity, the consciences of men, women and children have been numbed. The answer to one’s problem becomes the dehumanization and elimination of those who would interfere with what someone wants.
Is there any wonder that mass killings are occurring on a regular, almost daily, basis?
Let’s connect some dots.
Have an unplanned pregnancy? Illness? Getting too old? Other problems? Eliminate your problems with abortion or euthanasia.
Killing is fast becoming the choice many people are “choosing” in order to fix their problems. Killing of another or of self both devalue and destroy life.
We must wake up and recognize that the taking of any life, born, unborn, sick, handicapped, elderly, those of faith outside of ours — is wrong.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last month that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, thus bypassing a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade.
Cruz made the comments in a November 25 interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George as part of a series of candidate interviews that George is hosting on the the Catholic television network EWTN.
After outlining the personhood strategy, George asked Cruz, “Do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and, if so, will you call on Congress to use its authority under the 14th Amendment pursuant to Section Five, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?”
“Listen, absolutely yes,” Cruz responded.
“I very much agree with the pope’s longstanding and prior popes’ before him longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death,” he added.
“And we can do that by Congressional action without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?” George asked.
“Absolutely yes, under the 14th Amendment,” Cruz responded.
This past Thursday, Senate Republicans disregarded the procedure they’ve been using all year and decided that they would skip over the confirmation vote for Judge L. Felipe Restrepo for the important U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Restrepo would be only the second Latino to ever serve on this prestigious federal court.
Though no one has questioned Judge Restrepo’s qualifications for the job, Republican Senator Toomey is collaborating with Senate GOP leaders to prevent a confirmation vote.
Civil rights leader and People For the American Way (PFAW) board member Dolores Huerta stated:
“Shame on Senator Toomey and Senate Republicans for holding up the confirmation of highly-qualified Judge Restrepo. Republicans are once again using obstructionist tactics in a way that harms our country, and this time, it impacts Latinos in particular. We can’t let Senate Republicans get away with this blatant, partisan obstruction.”
PFAW Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon explained:
“By skipping over Judge Restrepo, Senate Republicans threaten not to hold a confirmation vote by the end of the year, meaning that the reset button could be hit on his confirmation. If they do that, he’d have to be re-nominated and re-processed by the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans and Democrats alike have voiced only support for Judge Restrepo.”
To schedule an interview with a PFAW spokesperson on this issue, please contact Laura Epstein (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Background on Restrepo’s Nomination Process
In November of last year, President Obama nominated federal district Judge L. Felipe Restrepo to be a judge on the important U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Unfortunately, Republican Senator Toomey and Senate GOP leaders in Washington DC have up to this point refused to hold a confirmation hearing.
Judge Restrepo would be only the second Latino to ever serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He would also be the first judge on the court to have experience as a public defender. It is important to fill this vacancy: The caseload is so high that it has been formally designated a judicial emergency, and there is a second vacancy on the same court. No one has questioned Judge Restrepo’s qualifications for the job, and Senator Toomey said great things about Judge Restrepo. But for over a year, every time that action has been needed to prevent Judge Restrepo from falling victim to Washington partisan politics, Toomey has chosen to be silent.
It’s critical that Judge Restrepo be confirmed before senators leave town for the holidays, which could be as soon as next week. He’s at the top of the list of judicial nominees waiting for a vote. But, apparently with Toomey’s acquiescence, GOP leaders have skipped Judge Restrepo and plan to confirm another nominee on Monday.
Because the Senate will likely adjourn at the end of this week, skipping Judge Restrepo could mean his confirmation vote will not happen this year. This could mean that in 2016, Judge Restrepo would have to be re-nominated by President Obama and re-submitted to the Judiciary Committee, further delaying his confirmation process.