Dems Unconstitutional Attack on Barrett’s Catholic Faith
Barry Nussbaum: Hello, and welcome to ATP Report Radio. I'm your host, Barry Nussbaum. We have a wonderful guest today. Clare Lopez is an internationally known commentator on all things international that relate to politics and intelligence. She is the founder of tell us exactly how to say it, Clare.
Clare Lopez: Lopez Liberty L.L.C.
Barry Nussbaum: I will give her an opportunity to tell you where to find her when we get farther on into the show. You are going to love her analysis today. We're going to talk about the incredible 24/7 coverage of the vacancy on the Supreme Court. So, let's get into it. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1993 until her death on September 18th. She was nominated by President Clinton. She was viewed as a liberal judge who became a hero of the progressive Left. Within just a couple hours of her passing, the fight started, which has now escalated into a full-scale political war over who's going to fill this empty seat on the court and who should be allowed to fill that empty seat and when. Now I want to remind everyone listening that the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2 says the President shall appoint the members of the Supreme Court and the Senate shall provide their advice and consent, or obviously, by implication, their lack of consent. It is not a privilege. In other words, it's not that he can or that he should; he must make those appointments, and the Senate must advise and consent, and both the President and all the sitting United States Senators have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So, Clare, let's kick it off. There are eight members of the court. There is one empty seat. Why is it so important who sits in that chair?
Clare Lopez: Well, Barry, it's because the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett would further tilt the Supreme Court in the direction in favor of conservatives. Of course, we'll recall that the President already has been able to nominate and obtain confirmation for two of his appointments to the Supreme Court. Amy Coney Barrett would make the third if confirmed, and that would give conservatives a six to three advantage on the nine-member court. So this is why this has become such a frenzy on the Left, because of the implications for issues of the day that are so important, like abortion, like Obamacare, like gun rights, Second Amendment rights, and indeed even the potential challenges to the outcome of the upcoming November 3rd, 2020 presidential election.
Barry Nussbaum: That is a perfect segue into my next question. Today, Joe Biden has made a similar speech to what he's been saying for the last several days. The same speech that's coming from Nancy Pelosi, that's coming from Chuck Schumer, that's coming from Kamala Harris and any other progressive that can get in front of a microphone basically stating that it is either unethical, a breach of protocol, or is taking away the rights of our average Americans to vote. Meaning the voters picked the President; therefore, the President picks the Supreme Court, and now since we're now coming up on election, the President has no right. As a little bit of a history lesson. In American history, there have been 19 potential justices to the Supreme Court being nominated during an election year when the President and the Senate were from the same party going all the way back to the very beginning. It's happened 19 times. Seventeen out of the 19 times or 90 percent of the time, whoever the President picked eventually made it to the court. So, there's a 90 percent track record for what Trump is doing now. Why are they fighting to the death? I mean that almost literally. The media has exploded with this idea that the people must pick the next President, and the next President must pick the next jurist. Why? Why the departure from American history?
Clare Lopez: Well, it's not really about American history, Barry, and it's because we're so polarized as a society in this country right now, and Amy Coney Barrett is on the record as a strict constitutionalist. That is in her past service as a judge; she has made it clear that she will uphold a commitment to the Constitution as written, that is, the interpretation of the law and cases that come before her. Based on how the Constitution was written in the beginning by the founding fathers. What the words they wrote at that time meant at that time the time that they were written. How they were understood publicly at the time those words were written, or, you know later on, as statutes became interpreted in various cases. But that is exactly the sort of Judge, like the other two that the President has nominated and confirmed to the court, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, likewise, they will be faithful to the Constitution. Originalist, strict constitutional originalists. So this is why the Left is in such a lather. They want the Constitution to be something like a "living document," picture air quotes here. They want the Constitution to be elastic. To be something that evolves and changes over time. In other words, the progressivist communist Marxist interpretation of history, but that's not what the Constitution is, and that is not what Judge Amy Coney Barrett stands for or will uphold once confirmed.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, thank you for that great summary, but I want to add something that's a little weird and get your take on this. I don't know if you remember this, but before Brett Kavanaugh's name was put forward and there was a vacancy, there were demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court carrying signs protesting the nomination that hadn't been made yet. In other words, fill in the blank, we hate justice so-and-so. So whoever Trump picked was unacceptable. Then, of course, who can forget this, it descended into a battle that made the National Enquirer look almost stately and academic in its reporting. By the disgusting sleazeball innuendo and made-up witnesses, like Avenatti, as an example, who's in prison for lying, among other crimes to besmirch and destroy someone who had a fantastic reputation, right? I can't believe he sat through that without tears running down his face. Very few people could. I assume they're going to do the same thing to this fine lady when it actually gets going. So is it less about the person and more about the fact that you are pointing out, which is they've got this living constitution theory rather than an idea that, hey, this is the most brilliant document ever recorded in the last three or four hundred years. It's not even close. So the judges that sit on that bench, their job is to interpret it, not make up new stuff. You had Laurence Tribe, the famous constitutional professor from Harvard, saying this. I think this is a quote in the last few days, "There's a lot of stupid stuff in the Constitution." So he's one of those guys of the school well, if you don't like it and you're on the Supreme Court, ignore it. What do you make of that?
Clare Lopez: Well, you know, Barry, this is part of the larger picture, I think, of what we are confronting in America today, and that is to put this in the context of the communist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist street revolution that is tearing up our streets. The forces of communism are attempting to take down our Constitution. To abolish it entirely, to wreck our system of law and order and so any who stand as Judge Barrett does, as Judge Gorsuch, as Judge Kavanaugh does for the original text of the Constitution and interpretation of the law, according to the understanding of the Founders who wrote it that is anathema. It is anathema, not just in the context of this fight over the next nomination, this nomination of Judge Barrett, and her confirmation to the Supreme Court. But in the broader context of everything that is attacking America today. We are in; I don't know if people realize how important and how significant the fight is that is going on right now the attack of the communist Marxist, Leninist, Maoist forces against our country to take down that Constitution, as I just said. So, placing Judge Barret's nomination and the fight over her confirmation into that context, I think maybe gives it you know, some broader significance about what we're up against. No, they will not be able to go after her personally in the vicious, vindictive way that they did those two earlier judges who were men. Judge Barrett, not only a woman, a very brilliant and accomplished lawyer and jurist herself but a Roman Catholic and a married mother of seven who earned her doctorate, her Juris doctorate at Notre Dame Law School. She served as a law clerk to Judge Lauren Silverman of the District of Columbia and then Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. She returned to Notre Dame in 2002 to teach, and then she was confirmed 55 to 43 in 2017 by a vote of the U.S. Senate to serve on the 7th Circuit Court where she has been until now. So she personally does not allow, not that the others do/did, but it is much more difficult, I think, to attack her, Judge Berrett, personally, even then perhaps Judge Gorsuch or Judge Kavanaugh. But put this in the larger context, I think, as I just laid out, and I think we'll have a better idea of why this is so important to America right now.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, I've got a perfect example of what you mentioned a minute ago, Clare about the radical Left doing anything to advance their revolution and I don't put revolution in quotes, I think they really want a revolution. In the House, our favorite nut case, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, is repeating her call for the House to impeach Trump again. To create a procedural nightmare that would derail the confirmation hearings. In other words, throw mud in every direction. See what sticks and just get past the time in which Trump, a Republican, could propose a nominee. Which now he has, and the Senate could advise and consent. As if that would do anything. Nancy Pelosi almost said the exact same thing, which is one of the arrows in her quiver. That's terrifying. That they would do whatever it takes to screw with the process.
Clare Lopez: I agree, Barry. You know, we're looking at not the Democratic Party of genuine liberals of the past. You know, like John F. Kennedy, for example. This is a different Democratic Party, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are examples of just how far off the tracks the Democrats have gone in the current makeup of Congress. The fact that they would try, as you say, to throw mud in every direction just to gum up the works, I guess, on the process of the hearings and confirmation for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, it just demonstrates how desperate they are because they know they don't have the votes in the Senate to block Judge Barret's confirmation. So, we are really working with, depending on, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has laid out a schedule for the hearings and for an eventual vote on Judge Barrett for her confirmation and that, will probably go as planned despite the best, or maybe I should say worst efforts of these frantic Leftist maniacs. I mean, what else do you call them?
Barry Nussbaum: But it gets worse, Clare. It's not just Ocasio-Cortez and the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, threatening procedural matters. Right? Let's talk about some of the comments coming out of the media. Here is a guy, and I'm referring to Reza Aslan at CNN, who has tweeted the following, "If they even try to replace RBG, we burn the entire f...ing thing," except he spelled it out. Now, he took down the tweet under tremendous pressure, and then he put it back. Now, you would think an author, a media darling, a guy with a show on and off on a major "news" network. I'm going to put news in quotes because it's CNN would be condemned by his employers, and they would distance themselves as fast as possible from this nutcase. He's calling for revolution to burn the country down. Suppose Donald Trump tries to do what he's required to do constitutionally, as we talked about Article II, Section 2. How is it possible that he gets away with this? Twitter leaves it up, CNN says nothing.
Clare Lopez: Well, let's put it into context here, who Reza Aslan is. Yes, a Leftist political commentator and CNN host. I mean, that's pretty much enough right there, but he's also an apologist for the Mullahs' regime in Iran. Very representative, I'm sorry to say, of the radical frothing at the mouth out of control Leftists who are, let's face it, after all, in support of the anarchists running riot in our streets, burning, looting, rioting, attacking, assaulting. This is part of the whole, and it goes back again to what I'm talking about. The Left is so desperate right now and believes that it has a moment in which it might be possible to tear down the system. To tear down our Constitution. I don't think it's possible, but they see an opportunity, and that's why you've got Antifa, the communists, the black bloc, the equally communist Marxist Black Lives Matter movement, and all of their allies in the streets with not a peep out of CNN and the commentators who speak on that. And others, not just CNN, cable T.V. channel stations.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, on that subject. The guy in the next office who I think is the number two rated guy at the network, Don Lemon, has proclaimed his willingness to, quote, "Blow up the entire system." He's still on the air today! Doesn't that just blow you away?
Clare Lopez: Well, no. It's CNN.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, I really, truly hope that Americans look at this and realize if CNN is giving microphones to these two guys, and these are their opinions, and they edit what they deliver as "news." I put "news" in quotes because I don't know what it means anymore. It should be propaganda that would be more accurate as a description. These people are political operatives masquerading as newscasters when, in reality, they are semi-closeted, I wouldn't even say closeted, revolutionaries.
Clare Lopez: Yeah, I mean, you are absolutely right, Barry, and you are right to be shocked. That this passes for some sort of news coverage on any media outlet, CNN, or any other, you're right to be shocked and outraged. I think we all should be that this is what passes and goes by without a peep in today's media. But again, the media are, for the most part, have been co-opted and completely infiltrated, penetrated, and are controlled by the radical communist Marxist Left.
Barry Nussbaum: I've got a question from a caller. They ask, do you think Amy, after she's confirmed, will shift left after being on the court for a while? Why do so many justices do that? They never seem to shift to the Right, only to the Left.
Clare Lopez: Yeah, I hear that, and I understand that concern, and there have been disappointments in some of the rulings issued with judges on the side of rulings that we would have wanted perhaps to go the other way. But honestly, I think with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, that she will remain true. Her entire judicial record up until this point, her character, her sterling character, her ethical and moral framework, and I don't mean to demean the ethical or moral framework of any of the other judges. I don't mean that. But she just strikes me as someone of such sterling character, as well as legal brilliance and has long-held true. She has long held true to a conservative interpretation of the law and rulings in her legal career up until now. I expect her to remain faithful as a constitutional originalist.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, I think you're correct, and I hope you're correct because I happen to personally feel that the Constitution doesn't need to be modified by activist judges who are masquerading as judges. When in reality, they're legislating from the bench. What do you make of this charge that's coming out? I read this morning that a number of commentators are attacking Judge Barrett for adopting two African-American children. Orphans out of Haiti because she a, I can't even say with a straight face, because she's a white supremacist and this is an example of the white privilege of those that run the white plantation. In other words, she and her husband had five kids. They went to Haiti. They adopted two orphans. They gave them a tremendous life. They brought them to the United States. I saw the kids on television with the President at the White House. It's obviously a family massively in love with each other, all the children and the parents, and Amy Coney Barrett is being attacked as a white supremacist plantation owner.
Clare Lopez: Just unalterably absurd, it goes to show that no matter what anyone does, be they of any color, actually, there is no redeeming. There was no getting away from the accusations that will come from these quarters, and it's ultimately not about skin color at all, is it? It is about a world view. It is about a mindset, and as you said, Barry, this is one of the most beautiful families anyone could imagine. After they had five children of their own to adopt, I mean to reach out to bring two of these children from Haiti. To welcome them into their family and give them all the opportunities that they now have growing up. Not only in a loving family like that, but with all the opportunity that America offers. You know that is just an incredible gesture of love. A love for children, a love for family, and I don't know how anybody in their right mind could attack that. It's despicable. It's disgusting, and it just doesn't even bear any further comment.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, how low can you stoop before you get to the point where you're actually even disgusting yourself? I mean, think about the accusations of rape against Brett Kavanaugh that the witness testified to, I don't even want to say her name. It's not worthy, and then she put up three witnesses that she said would corroborate her story. All of which said, under oath, Brett Kavanaugh wasn't even there.
Clare Lopez: Yeah.
Barry Nussbaum: There was no apology. There was no walking back, right? From all the Democratic Senators stood up and said, "I believe her." And yet, those are the same senators standing strongly behind Joe Biden when there are I don't know how many pictures of him groping young girls and sniffing their hair and rubbing their backs and moving in for kisses and the girls are eight years old. I mean, oh, my gosh, there is photographic and video evidence. Not to mention the alleged rape in the basement of the House, and yet if you're a Democrat, you get to almost, and I mean this literally, say anything. If it's in the guise of a hearing for advice and consent, right, and, oh, my gosh, there's no ramification that's negative. It's just sorry. I'm on my soapbox. It disgusts me. Let's talk about what Justice Ginsburg said a few years ago when she was asked about pre-election appointments to the Supreme Court in response to then-President Obama putting up the name of Merrick Garland in 2016. Ginsburg stated that presidents don't serve for three years, they serve for four, and she said, "That it is their job to nominate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being president in his last year". Are those words going to come back and haunt her after her passing?
Clare Lopez: It certainly will haunt somebody. You know that that is the perfect setup for the situation that we're looking at right now. But the thing to point out is something that perhaps she was not honing in on at that point. When and you mentioned this at the beginning, Barry, when the party of the President and the party that holds the majority in the Senate are the same as this year, but not as in 2016, then the appointments and the hearings and confirmations generally go forward. It is when there is a difference in the party that holds the presidency and the party that holds the majority in the Senate that is when, as in 2016, a nomination might be placed on hold until the election is over for the President.
Barry Nussbaum: Right, and I would agree with you. It's interesting, the two leftist judges, that were on the bench then, of the Supreme Court, the most prominent, as I just mentioned, Justice Ginsburg stated, quite honestly, as an interpretation of the Constitution, that the President should do the President's job, which is to nominate. Fellow progressive Left, Democrat nominated and confirmed Justice Sotomayor agreed with her on camera saying that's their job. In a later interview, Ginsburg said, "Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees." So, they had a conversation, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg in public saying, "You nominate when there's a vacancy, and the Senate then advises and consents." It's funny that now there is this deathbed final wish, supposedly, where Ginsberg threw out the Constitution and went political right before she passed. I don't know if she said it. Nobody knows. We weren't there, but the truth is, the Constitution is very clear. This is the President's job. Right?
Clare Lopez: Yes, absolutely right. We'll recall perhaps that this is not the first time that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least according to reports, has wanted to toss over the U.S. Constitution. I think we'll recall an earlier occasion. I think it was when she referred to the South African Constitution as somehow a model better to be followed than our own. So, yes, her words live on after her as do the words, here, of Justice Sotomayor. Who is still on the bench, of course, but their words, as well as the words of the U.S. Constitution. We might take note, yes.
Barry Nussbaum: So, what do you predict? The announcement has come out that they've got a schedule. It's going to be starting in a couple of weeks for hearings. Two prominent senators have already said they quit. They are not going to participate. There's actually a movement afoot, which I can't believe they're making public. All the Democrats might refuse in the Judiciary Committee to even attend, which, by the way, is unconstitutional. They have to. A couple of years ago, three years ago, when Amy came up for the circuit court, I was shocked beyond words that Dianne Feinstein, I think, about a million years old now. She commented about Amy being a devout Catholic and that her Catholicism would somehow limit or interfere with her ability to be an independent jurist. Now, keep in mind, there's a constitutional prohibition from even mentioning that. There's a clause in the Constitution that says someone's religion may not be discussed as a prerequisite to holding or not holding office. Feinstein got away with it, and nothing was done to sanction her. Which I think is wrong. I think she should be sanctioned for it. The idea that someone's religion or, in this case, someone who is, obviously, proudly observantly Catholic is unqualified because I think the comment was your dogma runs deep in you. Oh, my gosh, there should have been an uproar. Hey, I'm Jewish, and I'm disgusted that her religion was even mentioned. Do you think they're going to pull a stunt like that again?
Clare Lopez: I don't think so. Part of the reason at least ought to be, that not only was former President John F. Kennedy Catholic, and you recall the brouhaha at that time in the early 1960s about a Catholic becoming President. Would he be subordinate to the Vatican somehow? Well, he wasn't at all as that turned out. But in addition to that, both Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at least call themselves Catholic. Whether they actually are faithful, devout, practicing is a whole other question, but that's between them and their deity. How could they, the Constitution aside, because as you said, Barry, of course, it is written in the Constitution that there shall not be any religious test or criteria for office. That is the Constitution, but, you know, these very leadership figures today call themselves Catholics. So, what are they going to say? Well, she's more devout than they are. They're going to say, well, I'm not quite that devout, but she is. I mean, how is that going to come out? The dogma lives loudly within you. Well, isn't the dogma supposed to live loudly in any true, faithful, devout, practicing person of any faith.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, yeah.
Clare Lopez: I don't see how they're going to get around that.
Barry Nussbaum: You're right, and that's the fallacy of this argument as being defensible when it's truly, Clare, partly indefensible. You're not allowed to mention someone's religion regarding the inquiry into their suitability for office. It's in the Constitution, and that was one of the main driving forces of the document. That there was a separation between church and state. Where you went to worship was your business, and it was your personal business. It was not to be discussed, and it was not to be debated, and it was not to be used either for you or against you. And it just happened, you know, there is a similar kind of attack that came out a few days ago. There's this fellow who has an incredible following named Bill Maher. He came out after Trump proposed Barrett for the Judge, for the Justice, the 9th seat. He called the mother of seven who he says is a devout Catholic, an f...ing nut. But he said the word. Where did decorum go? Where did civility go? If you can't respect the Justices on the Supreme Court in the United States, who are supposed to be the most revered, the wisest, the above, the above, the above the fray, black robe justices. There was not even an outcry about it. I think it boost his ratings.
Clare Lopez: Yeah, Barry, I think this points out for us nothing more than the absolute gaping chasm between those Americans of principle, ethics, morality. Our Constitution is a Judeo-Christian basis/principle. The chasm between that and not just anyone who is actually a Jew, a Christian, or anything else of faith but a person of morals and ethics, just put it that way. The chasm between that and what we're looking at now on the other side of that chasm. Which is a complete absence; it's beyond an absence. It's the will to destruct any form of ethics and morality in public or personal life in America. I think that should illustrate for Americans, perhaps more than anything else, what the choices are before us. Right now, this election, this appointment, and her confirmation.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, let's talk about maybe the future. Let's say Biden wins, Trump loses. Let's say Amy is on the court by then. Okay? Whip out your crystal ball. I've got two questions from viewers or listeners; I should say that have to do with the future. The first question is, there are massive amounts of comments coming out of legislators. I don't mean Bill Maher nutcase comments. You know, where he calls a renowned Jurist, "an f...ing nut." But I'm talking about people that sit in Congress. They are talking about something that's never happened in American history, and I'm referring to packing the court. For our listeners who don't know what that means, Roosevelt, when President Roosevelt, the second time he was in office. He decided that the Supreme Court was too much stuck on this Constitution thing and they were interfering with his right to do whatever the hell he wanted. He came up with this great idea to start adding judges to the Supreme Court that his Democrat-controlled Senate could get through, but he would pick Justices who would do his bidding. In other words, they would work for Roosevelt rather than for the Constitution, and why didn't it happen? Because his own Democratic supporters in the Senate revolted and they said, "We're not going to do it." Now they're talking about it. Kamala Harris has talked about it. Biden, when asked if he would do it if he wins, refused to answer. This leads me to believe that he would, but he doesn't want it to be an issue. Rub that crystal ball and tell me you've got President Biden and if three seats swing in the Senate and they control the House, they can pack the court. Do you think they will?
Clare Lopez: Well, these are a lot of ifs.
Barry Nussbaum: They're not so far-fetched, you know?
Clare Lopez: Well, well, it could be very close, but we're right to be thinking about this because they have, in fact, threatened to do what you just said, Barry, which is to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. If they were to gain a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate and the White House, that would give the Democratic Party the power to add justices to the court of their liking, and one in such a situation could only hope that there would be justices of integrity even if the Democrats favored them. But this is a very ominous and a real possibility. To try, to bring this up because they've talked about doing just that.
Barry Nussbaum: Yeah, and I don't think people really realize how tragic that could be, because it eliminates the concept of an independent judiciary that was put in place to balance the power between the executive, the legislative, and be the arbiter of what really should be done with the laws being passed or the orders enacted by the executive. If that goes away, we are on our way to a world, at least in the United States, that I'm not going to be very fond of. Let's add another crystal ball question. So, use the same scenario, here's another question. There was a movement after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. I haven't heard this rumbling recently, but they talked about it some months ago. That if the Dems control the Senate, the idea would be to impeach Kavanaugh, not for any rulings, just because they hate him, and would that possibility also apply to Amy once she is confirmed? Do you think things will get that ugly or could get that ugly, I should say?
Clare Lopez: You know, I don't rule out anything at this point. The Left is absolutely desperate. It is absolutely committed to overthrowing our constitutional order by any means necessary. At this point, again, with all pretense of, you know, loyalty to the Constitution as written, thrown out the window. Anything is possible. This is what happens when, as our founding fathers said, this is a system that works only with moral people. If our leadership ceases to be moral, well, they've already ceased to be moral. But if they succeed in gaining complete power, both houses, the presidency. Then America as founded, America as defined in the Constitution, the America we've known is gone. It's finished. It's over.
Barry Nussbaum: Well. I can't argue with you, and I'm really sad to say that I think you might be right. Let's talk about some more crystal ball stuff. I looked up the history of some recent confirmations. The Democrat talking point is that it is absurd to rush through a Supreme Court nomination and confirmation without giving it the time it deserves. Notwithstanding the point that a number of senators that are Democrats are refusing to participate and that'll probably speed things up but let me just give you a little history here. John Paul Stevens, who has passed away, was confirmed, get this. in 19 days in 1975. Sandra Day O'Connor, who no one seems to remember, was the first female Justice, was confirmed in 33 days in 1981, and Ginsburg was confirmed in 42 days in 1993. So there's a lot of precedence for banging these things out quickly if you're not accusing the person who is nominated of being an I think the charge on the weekend was 'white colonialists who stole two black children from Haiti.' So, I mean, that. That's the quote, "white colonialist." Because I guess the idea is, we are going to have a segregated country, and we can't mix the races. I mean, it sounds like the segregationists of the Deep South in the old days. It's funny how the parties have reversed their roles, and now the Democrats want segregation, and the Republicans want integration. I don't really have any explanation for it. So, there is a precedence for having this done quickly. Assuming that happens, are there going to be riots in the streets? Are they going to go to the streets and, quote, "Burn it all down?" I mean, I'm reading stuff online that is terrifying, Clare. That they are going to go and set the Supreme Court on fire, they are going to lie down in the streets and give their lives to stop the vote, or if the vote goes through, there will be, and I mean this, Civil war is being promoted on CNN already. Will it happen?
Clare Lopez: Well, the anarchists, the communists, the Marxists are already in the streets committing arson and looting and destruction and rioting. I think we can expect more of the same in the lead up to Judge Barrett's confirmation and afterward as well as leading up to and after the election of November the 3rd. But let's remember, there is no place probably in the entire world that is better defended than the federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and at that point, the President would be absolutely justified in using the full authority of his office and of the constitutional law and order to defend buildings like the Supreme Court and others. I have no doubt that they'll throw their worst onto the streets. They will, you know, their heads will explode, figuratively speaking, but they will not be able to control themselves. They are nothing more than a bundle of emotions minus frontal cortexes. This will be totally amygdala driven, but I think that if this comes to the Capitol and to Capitol Hill, where the Supreme Court building is right across the street from the Capitol building, there will be measures taken to defend that federal property to the fullest extent of the law.
Barry Nussbaum: I hope to God it doesn't come to this. I mean, I like you, I've been in all of those buildings. In my wildest nightmare, I never imagined walking down the Capitol steps, walking around the Supreme Court, going to the White House that these would be areas that you would have anarchy. Like we are in Argentina or some other third world country where the abused, downtrodden, unrepresented masses take to the streets to try to topple the government. That's what we are seeing, and it scares me because it's destabilizing for the country. Especially as we're trying to come out of this COVID mess and get things going again, it's an America I never thought I would see. Did you?
Clare Lopez: No, I never thought I would see it either. This is very much akin to some of the comparisons you are making. Let's think of this in terms of St. Petersburg, 1917, a Bolshevik revolution. That is what they're attempting here. That is what they're trying to pull off, and again, one of their own phrases on the Left is by any means necessary. I think the President and our top national security officials are aware of that. I think they're going to prepare for that, and I think that we're very lucky to have, as attorney general right now, one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution ever to occupy that office, Attorney General William Barr. But nevertheless, yeah, it absolutely is alarming, Barry. It certainly is, and we're going to have to buckle in and be prepared to defend the republic in the days to come.
Barry Nussbaum: Well, we'll see. It's getting worse, not better, and with this nomination and the contentious fight to the death over it, there may be more blood in the streets. We have one last question. I mean, I've got a dozen of them here on my screen, but we don't have the time because we're out of time practically. I've seen three or four of these questions come through. So, I'm going to ask you this one because it seems to be on everyone's mind. The crux of it is that there seems to be a big concern on the Left that adding a conservative jurist in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will move the court to the Right, especially in regards to challenges to the Roe v. Wade decision of several decades ago and abortion rights are on the agenda in the near future. What is your crystal ball say?
Clare Lopez: Well, I'm not going to look so much at a crystal ball as at what Judge Barrett herself has said about how she views, and I'll quote here from her, how she views the, quote, "Issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today." And she said, quote, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge." And quote again, "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that Judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law," end quote``. I will take Judge Barrett at her word.
Barry Nussbaum: So, no prediction on the way she votes based on that statement?
Clare Lopez: I don't know what kind of a case will come before her, but I trust her word that she will uphold the law, and her decision will be based on the law, on the Constitution, and not on her personal religious faith or beliefs.
Barry Nussbaum: Isn't that what they're all supposed to do? All nine of them?
Clare Lopez: Yes, absolutely.
Barry Nussbaum: Exactly. Clare tell our listeners today how they can be in touch with you and can follow you and hear your pearls of wisdom when we're not together at ATP.
Clare Lopez: Well, thank you, Barry. Well, you can find me at Clare M Lopez on Facebook, on Twitter, on Parley. I publish many of my writings, my videos you can find at the United West, and Sharia Crime Stoppers. I also blog for Newsweek, although I've been remiss of late. I must get back to that. Newsmax, I should say, a blog for Newsmax and then also my work can be found posted up at the Citizens Commission on National Security and also sometimes at the World View Weekend Branon Houses platform.
Barry Nussbaum: All of which are great sources. I encourage our listeners to take you up on that, and it's obvious you must sleep 45 minutes a night with how much you are putting out. And for our listeners if you haven't subscribed yet to our ATP text message alert system. Please take out your cell phones and type the word TRUTH as your message line and send it to 88202. You will be automatically subscribed to all of our future radio and video and essays that come out. You'll see our writings, and I encourage you to do so. All of our content always free. You don't have to do a thing other than to send the word TRUTH to 88202, and you'll start getting stuff on your cell phone for no charge. Clare, thanks so much for joining us today. And to all of our viewers out in ATP Land, we hope to be with you again soon. For ATP Radio, I'm Barry Nussbaum.
Announcer: You were listening to ATP Radio. Make sure to text the word a TRUTH, T-R-U-T-H, to 88202 to be notified of our future radio shows.