But Dems Love Cutting Deals With Him… Trump’s Catholic Judicial Pick Angers Democrats

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Long ago having made malicious permissive abortion the core of its political ideology, the national Democratic Party has been swallowed by the resulting extremism of treating innocent preborn babies as malignant growths best destroyed by the millions, followed by the repellent extraction and sale of their human heads, hearts, brains, and other body parts.
One reason for the rise of an unconventional politician like President Trump is that unscrupulous Democrats have driven away supporters who used to give them large congressional majorities, leaving the party starving for votes. And now, like a wild animal caught in a trap, national Democrats desperately chew off their own legs in public view.
The depth to which these Democrats have sunk was illustrated anew as their U.S. senators astoundingly interrogated a University of Notre Dame law professor as if she were a seditious Catholic extremist guilty of clinging to un-American views.
Left-wing Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) chillingly admonished Professor Amy Coney Barrett on September 6 that Catholic “dogma lives loudly within you,” thereby revealing the leftists’ concerns that Barrett was unsuitable for a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Trump had nominated her.
Barrett, a highly accomplished legal professional, also is mother of seven children.
Feinstein and her older colleagues were alive in 1979, when the iconic horror film Alien was released, featuring a little space monster growing inside a person then bursting forth through the victim’s flesh. Perhaps Feinstein fancied herself to be heroine actress Sigourney Weaver, trying to save humanity from the gestating inner demons of Catholicism?
Gestating? Like unborn infants? Ah yes. What really worried Feinstein and her perturbed radical colleagues like Senators Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), Al Franken (D., Minn.), and Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) was that Barrett as a judge would dishonor their sacrament of massive abortion, created as a constitutional right in 1973 out of thin air — actually, in an absolute mental vacuum — by seven Supreme Court authoritarians. Aliens from space indeed!
Although liberal judicial activists have felt free to burst through with new laws completely lacking necessary precedent, Feinstein and her cohorts were distressed that Barrett as a judge might dare depart from topsy-turvy pro-abortion law thus created.
A September 11 Wall Street Journal editorial defending Barrett commented, “Many readers are stunned that politicians would suggest that having ‘orthodox’ religious views could disqualify someone from the American judiciary.”
Democrats for Life of America said in a September 8 statement by its executive director, Kristen Day: “Feinstein really means one issue, of course: abortion. And what she denigrates as ‘dogma’ is the Catholic teaching that a human being is a person with dignity from the moment of conception — a belief held by millions of Americans, including believers of all faiths and nonbelievers alike.”
Day added later in her statement: “It’s another example of how the Democratic Party loses its way when it focuses on protecting rigid abortion-rights ideology to the exclusion of all other principles. That same misguided focus has caused the party to lose all branches of the federal government and, in the last eight years, 1,000 legislative seats around the country.”
Unfortunately, one major reason Democrat officials feel so bold to denigrate Catholic belief against abortion slaughter — or anyone else’s such traditional moral belief — is that for decades, leading Catholic officials let them get away with it.
For a full decade the left-wing Jesuit priest Robert Drinan served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, promoting permissive abortion and showing shocked Democrats that such defiance was acceptable, even by a priest, until Pope John Paul II in 1980 demanded that priests withdraw from electoral politics.
When Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, putatively “Catholic” Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts quickly let out a roar of opposition, including a fierce accusation that Bork would restrict abortion. Bork’s nomination failed. Militancy for permissive abortion by Catholic officeholders became the Democrat style.
Even though newly elected President Obama in 2009 was the most extreme pro-abortionist ever to occupy the White House, even having fought to have babies die who’d survived abortion, he was welcomed to Notre Dame for honors by that school’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, despite widespread pleas by pro-lifers against allowing the scandalous campus visit.
Perhaps Jenkins, like many Catholic officials before him, thought he could placate pro-abortion politicians like Obama and moderate their extremism. But Catholics who fed this tiger simply increased its rapacity. Radical pro-abortion Democrats grew only more extreme since 2009 and produced a party platform with its worst-ever pro-abortion plank for the 2016 elections.
Jenkins may have realized the futility of being accommodating to politicians whose bedrock demand is unceasing millions of tax-paid permissive abortions throughout pregnancy. Shortly after the Senate Democrats lashed out at Barrett, Jenkins, no conservative, wrote Feinstein to chastise her objection to the law professor’s internal “dogma.”
“It is chilling to hear from a United States senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge,” Jenkins wrote. “I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom ‘dogma lives loudly’ — which is a condition we call faith. For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should command respect, not evoke concern.”
The president of Princeton University, Christopher Eisgruber, also sent senators a letter, saying:
“I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Prof. Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.”
Eisgruber noted the constitutional prohibition against using “religious tests” for public service.
Even Never-Trumper U.S. Senators Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) and Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) reportedly criticized their Democratic colleagues’ line of attack.
While the Trump administration’s nomination of Barrett for a prominent judicial seat provided more evidence of its pro-life sympathies, the president had many people wondering just where some of his political improvisations would end up.
Although it seemed plain Trump had various conservative instincts, his governing style still raised legitimate doubts. He shocked just about everyone and sent congressional Democrats into ecstasy when he announced on September 6 that he’d cut a deal with their left-wing leaders, instead of his own GOP leaders, for a short-term spending agreement.
Naturally the agreement, being a capitulation to Democrats, continues to fund Planned Parenthood with tax dollars. CNSNews.com posted on September 11 that it’s the third spending deal Trump signed funding the nation’s largest abortion provider, despite the president’s campaign pledges not to do so.
National conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin conceded on September 8 that the GOP has lacked leadership under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, but he said that it’s up to Trump himself as president to provide that leadership, as Ronald Reagan had done.
Levin said Trump “is lurching left because he wants to lurch left.” Noting that Trump had just said Congress has six months to come up with a legal replacement for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) illegally created by Obama, Levin recalled Trump’s hearty campaign promises to end DACA.
How many votes would Trump have lost last November, Levin asked, if Trump had said he didn’t really want to end DACA, but he just wanted Congress to codify it?
More than once in recent days on his program, Levin recalled former GOP President Richard Nixon giving Democrats what they wanted in areas including environmentalism, affirmative action, and wage-and-price controls, trying to win their support, but the Democrats still resolutely ran him out of the White House.
Currently Trump is empowering the political party that wants to remove him from the presidency, Levin said.
Trump supporters can show patience if they think he’s still learning the ropes, but not if they think he’s devising a noose for their hopes.
Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh took a phone call on September 7 from a Phoenix man who said he has been on the Trump train from its early days, even having attended the July 2015 Phoenix rally where Trump underscored his opposition to massive illegal immigration. Trump decided that rally showed he really had a serious presidential campaign on his hands.
However, the caller told Limbaugh, if the U.S. ends up with a new DACA and still no border wall, he’s getting off the Trump train.
On the same program, Limbaugh cited a September 6 column by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro saying that Republicans can’t simply save up their political capital; they have to spend it or it degrades.
Shapiro wrote: “This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats see their radical legislative moves as building blocks for the future. Republicans, afraid that their carefully crafted tower of electability will come crumbling down, make no radical legislative moves.”
Democrats went ahead and rammed through Obamacare, he wrote, even though it eventually cost them Congress and the presidency. But they didn’t see this as such an important loss.
“They see it as an investment in a leftist future: By making Americans accustomed to the idea that the government is responsible for universal (health) coverage, they understand that any future failures will be attributed to lack of government, not an excess of it,” Shapiro wrote.
In the same way, he wrote, Obama created DACA, knowing that a future GOP president simply could end it, but Republicans would be afraid of “changing the status quo — they wouldn’t want to own the political consequences of allowing the deportation of DACA recipients.”
On a separate radio program on September 7, as he guest-hosted for talk host Levin, Shapiro said the cases of DACA recipients should be considered individually instead of simply giving them blanket acceptance to stay in the U.S.

New Confusion

However, the evening of September 13 Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer emerged from a dinner with Trump to say the president agreed with them for quick action on an expansive new DACA, but no funding for a border wall.
The Associated Press reported the agreement was “the latest instance of Trump ditching his own party to make common cause with the opposition,” and followed “a White House dinner that Republican lawmakers weren’t invited to attend.
“It would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as kids who had benefited from former President Barack Obama’s. . . . DACA program, which provided temporary work permits and shielded recipients from deportation,” the AP said.
The story added that a Pelosi spokesman said “the president was clear he would press for the wall, but separate from this agreement.”
Earlier on September 13 national radio talk host Laura Ingraham said a DACA figure of 700,000 people is incorrect because relatives also would be included, actually meaning two million, bringing more chain migration.
The following morning, as this hardcopy issue of The Wanderer was about to go to press on September 14, Trump threw the DACA issue into new confusion, denying a deal had been made the previous evening, but tweeting in high praise of DACA recipients.
A seriously worried Ingraham said on September 14 that if Trump can’t get a wall deal done now, when he has bargaining leverage over the Democrats on DACA, he’ll never get it done.

Bannon And The Bishops

DACA also was a topic on a CBS interview that aired September 10 with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a Catholic. Describing Catholic bishops as being “terrible about this,” Bannon said that because of the Church’s problems, bishops need illegal aliens to fill the pews, as well as having “an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.”
Although Bannon may have overstated the case about economics, the Church certainly benefits from government grants for expansive “migrant” programs.
Bannon added that as much as he respects the bishops on Church doctrine, “this is not doctrine. This is not doctrine at all….This is about the sovereignty of a nation. And in that regard, they’re just another guy with an opinion.”
In response, New York’s Timothy Cardinal Dolan claimed that bishops’ negligence about borders is a biblical mandate — a major exaggeration sure to strike many as untrue.

End Of A Truce?

Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer that left-wing senatorial Democrats’ attack on the Notre Dame professor could be a sign of trouble for how Church bureaucrats have tried to ignore that party’s hostility to Church moral teaching.
“Democrat officeholders and the Catholic Church have long had an uneasy relationship, where the Church mostly looks away while Democrats champion abortion and same-sex marriage, and then they can all work together to push social-welfare spending and amnesty for illegal aliens,” Querard said.
“This new line of attack where simply being Catholic may suddenly be a potential disqualifier is obviously poorly thought out and could fracture the longstanding truce,” he said.