Dystopia in the service of the Democrats

As I expected a week ago, Donald Trump did not disappoint the expectations of millions of his supporters and named the 48-year-old Illinois judge Amy Connie Barrett, who is to replace the deceased 87-year-old Ruth Ginsburg in the country's Supreme Court.

The hysteria of Democrats, liberals, progressives and other fighters for a bright future for America, which is shaking all mainstream media, began, it seems, even before Trump announced his decision.

After all, Amy Barrett isn't just young (for a Supreme Court judge, anyway) - she's also outrageously illiberal.

Abortion, same-sex marriage, gun ownership, immigration - the Illinois judge is extremely conservative on all of these critical issues for liberals.

If the Senate votes to approve Barrett, the balance of power in the Supreme Court "shifts slightly but firmly to the right, reducing the likelihood of compromise and jeopardizing the abortion rights established by (Supreme Court. -

) in Roe v. Wade." - writes legal columnist for The New York Times Adam Liptak.

It is especially offensive to the Democrats that almost all their poisonous arrows are powerless against Amy Barrett, of which, according to Nancy Pelosi, they have "many more in their quivers."

If Brett Cavanaugh was accused two years ago of attempting to rape a college student 38 years ago, there is no such charge against an Illinois judge.

Not only is Barrett a woman, she is also an exemplary mother - she has seven children (five of her own and two adopted), and the youngest son Benjamin is a child with Down syndrome.

If the Senate approves her candidacy, she will become the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, also a mother of school children.

For sentimental American housewives, this is a powerful argument in favor of Barrett.

All seven of Barrett's children were present in the White House Rose Garden listening to her short but emotional speech in which she paid tribute to her predecessor, Ginsburg ("the great American").

Millions of TV viewers saw the pride in the eyes of both white and black children of the judge when Trump called their mother "one of the brightest and most gifted legal minds in the country."

It will be very, very difficult for the Democrats to fight the woman who won the American sympathy overnight.

It is difficult, but necessary - because liberals and Obama's progressives, of course, cannot allow the Supreme Court to be in the hands of conservatives for the first time in many decades.

They are afraid that once he gets to the Supreme Court, Barrett will become as indisputable authority in the right camp as Ginsburg was in the left.

But if Ginsburg consistently voted for all liberal innovations and against the conservative ones, then the judge from Illinois will do the same - only with the opposite sign.

Amy Vivian Connie Barrett was born into a family of a lawyer who worked for a large oil company and a French teacher.

She was the eldest of seven children and was raised in the strict Catholic faith.

She graduated from St. Mary's Private School for Girls, taught by Dominican nuns, then studied English language and literature, and then law at the Catholic University of Notre Dame, Indiana.

After graduating from university, she worked for several years as a legal assistant and secretary for judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court, her mentor and mentor was one of Washington's leading conservative intellectuals, Antonin Scalia.

Amy learned a lot from him - and to this day she is considered the ideological heir to "the most conservative judge of the Supreme Court."

After completing her internship, Barrett returned to Notre Dame, where she taught herself for 15 years.

One day, speaking to students, Barrett uttered the words that many regard as her credo: "Remember that a legal career is just a means to an end, and this goal is to build the Kingdom of God."

It was in these words of her that the liberals of Capitol Hill clung to, when in 2017 Trump nominated her to the post of judge of the Court of Appeals in Illinois.

This appointment also had to pass approval in the Senate.

Then several Democratic senators, led by the former mayor of San Francisco, Diana Feinstein, gave Barrett a real interrogation with partiality.

They wanted to know what Barrett had in mind when she wrote that Catholic judges must obey the norms of the Church in passing death sentences, and why she joined other Catholic professors at the University of Notre Dame and signed public letters that explicitly stated, that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

In the end Feinstein could not stand it and almost shouted at the judge: “You have dogma!

And when you tackle the important issues that many people in this country have struggled with for years, it is alarming! "

However, Feinstein went too far when she attacked Barrett.

Many Republicans took her words of "dogma" as an insult, and Senator Orrin Hatch of the conservative (Mormon) state of Utah accused Democrats of putting Barrett on a "religious test."

Young Republican lawyers ran viral advertisements on the Internet claiming that Feinstein and her colleagues were sending a clear message to candidates for judicial positions: "Catholics should not apply!"

Now the excessive zeal of Feinstein and her associates is doing the Democrats a disservice.

Attacking Barrett for being strong in her Catholic faith would be a mistake that could hurt Democrats in elections, said Doug Pagitt, an evangelical pastor who leads the Voting for the Common Good organization, which aims to convince members of all faiths to support election of Sleepy Joe Biden.

Pagitta worries that many Catholic voters are shifting from Catholic Biden to evangelist Trump.

And if the Democrats in the Senate again attack Barrett with accusations of being "dogmatic," this process will only intensify.

“The only thing that worries me in the next 30 days is that Democrats will look like they are afraid of religious people or they don't like believers,” Pagitt admits.

In other words, blaming Barrett for being a devout Catholic is dangerous for Democrats - it could reflect badly on the already bleak prospects of their last hope, Joe Biden.

Therefore, frankly delusional speculations, constructed according to the precepts of the unkind memory of Goebbels, were used: "The more monstrous the lie, the sooner they will believe in it."

Ah, Barrett has two adopted children?

And blacks too, from Haiti?

(Perhaps one of the Americans remembers that there was a terrible earthquake in Haiti in 2010, which killed 220 thousand people and left millions homeless. And at least one of her adopted children was adopted by Barrett after this disaster).

What if these Haitian children were illegally adopted by Barrett?

Maybe she even stole from their biological parents, who are still alive and shed bitter tears for their lost children?

Such "conspiracy theories" are now actively chewed on Twitter - of course, by Democrats.

However, these are still flowers.

The most "luxurious" attempt to discredit the newly minted Supreme Court justice candidate was made by a number of anti-Trump media outlets immediately after it became known that the president was considering Barrett as a priority candidate to replace Ruth Ginsburg.

On September 21, an article appeared in the prestigious Newsweek newspaper claiming that an Illinois judge "is associated with the Christian religious group that inspired Margaret Atwood's dystopia, The Handmaid's Tale."

Many have seen the series "The Handmaid's Tale".

But the novel based on which it was filmed was read by us, probably, by a few.

The action in the book, written already in 1985, takes place in the state of Gilead, which arose in the United States after a coup carried out by a group of conservative revolutionaries.

In Gilead there is a theocracy, a certain sect that calls itself "Children of Jacob" rules.

There are few details by which one can somehow attribute this sect, but it seems that we are talking about some kind of extreme outcry of Protestant fundamentalism, the elite of the state - someone like the Puritans of the 16th-17th centuries, armed with modern technologies.

In any case, the rulers of Gilead look little like Catholics.

A noteworthy detail: in the novel, unlike in the series, there are no blacks at all, since they are considered "children of Ham" and are evicted somewhere on the outskirts of the civilized world.

But the main thing that distinguishes the theocracy of Gilead is the absolutely powerless position of women.

Humanity is struck by infertility, only every hundredth woman is able to bear a child.

Elite Gilead with might and main uses the services of "maidservants" - surrogate mothers from the common people, capable of childbirth.

When a maid gives birth to a child, she is transferred to another family, and her child remains with the owners.

So, according to the author of the article in Newsweek, the source of inspiration for Margaret Atwood, who described this inhuman world of triumphant patriarchy, was the People of Praise organization, to which “the devout Catholic Barrett and her husband belong,” whose fathers “ were the leaders in this group. "

Further on to the gullible reader all sorts of horrors fall out: “The charismatic Christian parachurch organization, founded in South Bend, Indiana, in 1971, teaches that men have power over their wives.

Members of the organization take a lifelong oath of allegiance to each other and are expected to donate at least 5% of their income to the group. ”

Scary?

And if you think about it, is it really about something more than just keeping the biblical commandments?

And aren't the promises that the groom and the bride make during the marriage ceremony "a lifelong oath of fidelity to each other"?

The only question is how to present everything ...

But here's another horror: it turns out that the members of the group used the names for the male advisers ("head") and women ("servant")!

And they supposedly canceled them only after the series based on the novel Atwood was released.

Well, that is, not completely canceled, but replaced by politically correct "leaders".

This version was happily picked up by other liberal media.

For example, an article published on the Reuters website asked, “The Handmaid's Tale?

The Religious Community of the US Supreme Court nominee is under close scrutiny! "

But it quickly became clear that the Newsweek material was, as Bulgakov's hero put it, "a case of so-called lies."

And even a completely anti-Trump-minded Vox reprimanded colleagues for inaccuracy - they say, it would be nice to do fact-checking after all.

Both Newsweek and Reuters had to hastily change headlines and revise their articles.

It turned out that Atwood was "inspired" by a completely different organization - People of Hope.

Very little is known about this group, but in the 1980s, when Atwood was writing her novel, in New Jersey, where the People of Hope were based, there was a lot of gossip about them, including it was said that the leaders of this sect allegedly arrange teenage marriages ...

At the same time, they referred to former members of the sect, who, however, were in no hurry either to contact the police or confirm their words under oath ...

What does Amy Connie Barrett have to do with it?

Where, as they say, is the estate (in this case Illinois), and where is the flood (New Jersey)?

What do “People of Praise” and “People of Hope” have in common, except that the name of both groups contains the word “people”?

The liberal-democratic swamp is silent, does not give an answer.

The purpose of all this lies is simple - to sow doubts in the minds and souls of Americans that the candidate for the chair of the Supreme Court judge is really worthy of this post.

And for this, you can put her up as a member of a totalitarian sect, especially since those who watched the series "The Handmaid's Tale" received a visual representation of the horror into which all these religious fanatics who hate women want to drive America.

And if someone begins to doubt, he will immediately be reminded: well, what was the purpose of the female servants in Gilead?

Give birth to children for the elite, and more.

And what is Amy Coney Barrett against?

That's right, against abortion.

Now add two and two!

In such a cunning way, you can influence public opinion, but ultimately the fate of Barrett (and possibly the presidential election) will be decided in the upper house of the US Congress.

And there are people sitting there who are not inclined to change their views because of hints of some kind of dystopia of the average hand.

Now, if journalists provided senators with irrefutable evidence of Barrett's involvement in a totalitarian sect, this could affect some Republicans.

And now there is only a lie, and a rather inept lie, sewn with white thread.

Here even politicians with very weak memories will surely recall the mountains of lies that the Democrats piled up trying to keep Brett Cavanaugh out of the Supreme Court.

It seems that the same story will be repeated with Barrett: trying to get rid of the judge they did not like, the Democrats once again shot themselves in the leg.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.