Papist or Jurist? New York Times Columnist Warns Of Inherent Conflicts Between “Catholicism and the American Ethos.” 

We have been discussing the anti-Catholic attacks on Judge Amy Coney Barrett and how various commentators are calling her a “cult member” and a religious “monster.” Most responsible writers and newspapers have condemned the attacks but the New York Times has run a column that appears to justify the attacks using the same anti-Catholic tropes.  (For the record, I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic high school in Chicago). The column by Elizabeth Bruenig explains why the attacks may “not be entirely baseless” in exploring historical and philosophical sources. While I do not believe Bruenig holds or wants to advance long-standing anti-Catholic prejudices, the column references sources and advances stereotypes that are painfully familiar to many Catholics.

Before addressing the merits of Bruenig’s argument, which I strongly disagree with, I would like to make two threshold points. First, Bruenig is an excellent writer with an impressive background in religious studies from Brandeis, Cambridge, and Brown universities. She previously wrote for the New Republic, The Atlantic, and the Washington Post.  She is Catholic, extremely liberal, and offers an interesting perspective on these issues.

Second, I am not critical of the New York Times publishing the column. This is not a problem of inclusivity but hypocrisy.  The Times continues to publish highly controversial columns from the far left while promising not to run columns like the one penned by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton on the use of military force to quell rioting.  The Cotton column was factually correct, but objections from the left led to the removal of the editor and the cringing apology of the Times. In the meantime, those who pushed for renunciation of the column (and editors) have continued to tweet out utterly absurd and baseless anti-police conspiracy theories.  The Bruenig column is an example of how the New York Times has made the echo-chamber media into a deafening reality.  It is doubtful that the New York Times would publish a column exploring how a nominee’s Muslim or Jewish faith raises legitimate questions over their commitment to “American ethos.”

Now for the merits. Bruenig begins her column with the statement that “Critics of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee argue that pious Catholics are a problem for liberalism. They have a point.” The framing of the column in terms of “liberalism” is a tad misleading.  Critics of Barrett have said that she will follow church dogma blindly and erase any line between public and private values in legal analysis. That is more than some religious difficulty with “liberalism.” Bruenig herself makes this clear just a few graphs down in questioning whether there is “fundamental conflict, centuries underway, between Catholicism and the American ethos.”  She notes “Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations.”

Much of this discussion however concerns the common tensions between religion and public life that cuts across religions. It is called morality.  While a diehard secularist who has spent his life writing and litigating against morality based laws, I respect my friends and colleagues who argue for morality in the law as a foundational concept.  It has long been embraced as the touchstone of legal systems and many liberal writers rely on such arguments to advance legal positions.  Bruenig wrongly suggests that there is something about Catholicism that legitimately gives pause in reviewing nominees like Barrett.

Bruenig recounts how the philosopher John Locke warned that Catholics “could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere” and how that view “was not entirely baseless.”  I teach Lockean theory and love to discuss his brilliant theories from The Two Treatises of Government. Bruenig appears to be pulling from John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration. The work is ironically controversial for the same reason as Bruenig’s column: it speaks of tolerance while expressing intolerant views. Locke embraces the role of faith and civil values in government. However, when it comes to Catholics, his tolerance evaporates. Using common papist tropes, Locke warns that Catholics are not truly committed citizens because they are not “subjects of any prince but the pope.” Their faith, Locke claimed, is “absolutely destructive to the society wherein they live.”

Locke justifies his hostility with two general claims. First, because “where [papists] have power they think themselves bound to deny it to others.” In other words, Catholics seek power for themselves to oppress others.  Second, Locke insisted that Catholics “owe a blind obedience to an infallible pope, who has the keys of their consciences tied to his girdle, and can upon occasion dispense with all their oaths, promises and the obligations they have to their prince.”

Bruenig does not mention any of this anti-Catholic bias by Locke or the intense anti-Catholicism at the time that Locke was writing. Instead, she launches into how institutions like The Little Sisters of the Poor demanded exceptions to Obamacare. However, so did other religious groups. That is called a free exercise challenge that has been brought by Jews, Muslims, protestants, and virtually every other religion throughout our history.

Judge Barrett has declared that “judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.” Yet, after noting that position, Bruenig returns to the sinister role of the Catholic Church and Locke:  “With individuals, this kind of resolution usually suffices. But Catholic institutions are another story: It is in their fortunes that Locke’s suspicions have proven most prescient.”

The column works too hard to rationalize the use of faith in scrutinizing a nominee.  While Bruenig takes a passing swipe at the most raw attacks on Barrett involving allegations that she belongs to a cult, she then justifies suspicions tied to her religion. The clear implication is that there really is reason to question the commitment of devout Catholics like Barrett to “American ethos,” as stated in Locke’s anti-Catholic diatribe.  This is why famed historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”

There is, of course, another view of “American ethos” that is bound tightly with the free exercise of religion and religious tolerance. It is not found in papist attacks or anti-Catholic tropes but in the history of this country, including the service of great Catholic leaders from John Kennedy to Joe Biden to a host of Supreme Court justices. They did not seem to struggle with the “American ethos.” They helped define it.

568 thoughts on “Papist or Jurist? New York Times Columnist Warns Of Inherent Conflicts Between “Catholicism and the American Ethos.” ”

  1. The strong arm of the Democrat Party, used to terrorize blacks who refused to toe the line, and attack Catholics.

    Not much has changed except for the hats.

    This absolute, unrelenting hatred for conservatives has got to stop.

      1. They don’t come more conservative than the American Founders.

        Like Ruth Ginsburg, the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) hate the Constitution and the American Founders who wrote it.

        They have nullified the Constitution practically out of existence and torn down many respective statues.

        This farce can only end after their treason is expunged.

        1. How many Catholics would be too many on the Supreme Court? It seems to me that “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” is code for a litmus test for a Catholic Justice! I wonder what the writers of the Constitution meant by this!

          “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies”

          Our Founding Fathers would be called Anti Catholic bigots by the USCCB.

      2. PoP are not conservatives. I have known a few and they did not seem all that conservative to me. And they were women who were not in the slightest bit submissive.

        I don’t consider “submissive” as a bad thing in itself, but I rather found the handful that I have met over decades, anything but submissive. They were more assertive, actually

        Of course conservative is in the eye of the beholder. The group is concerned with finding in their prayer emotional elation and in my mind this is precisely why they are woman-heavy in the group, because women have a tendency to enjoy emotional elation, perhaps.

        Barrett is a jurist. her association with this prayer group is incidental. You all make far too much of it.

        Now on to political theory:

        If you want to make a point about secularism, go for the gold and don’t play around with the inconsequential PoP thing.

        There is a legitimate issue to be made about secularism and serious Catholics. Catholicism does have an elaborate teaching concerning the role of the state and Church and other social justice related issues. Generally Democrats like some of the social justice teachings, but as it regards secularism, there is a real divergence. Catholicism does envision a role for teaching when it comes to positive law. It is perhaps disingenuous of some Catholics to pretend that it does not.

        Vatican II perhaps obscured the issue rather than clarifying it, but, perhaps it’s time for people to take a closer look at the subject. I am no expert.

    1. I object to DB’s ignorance and prejudice. The Brotherhood of the People of Praise have official status in the RC Church as a private association of Christ’s [Christian] Faithful. The members include 3 priests and a Bishop (installed by the Pope). Now you may not like her religious beliefs, but to call what she is involved with -Charismatic Catholicism- a ‘cult’, umm, well really shows more about *you* then it does her.

    2. ACB’s cult isn’t a so-called prayer group. See comments further down in this thread to see how thoroughly the elders, so-called, dominate and control especially women.

      So whose opinions actually appear in ABC’s writings, hmmm?

      1. David B Benson……Whose opinions? How about the same person who graduated FIRST in her Notre Dame Law School class, summa cum laude and as an editor of the Law Review? Those were her accomplishments; not a man, Instead of blindly swallowing the ongoing smear campaign against ACB, try reading her articles so you know what you’re talking about. Also you might learn something by reading testimonials by ACB’s LIBERAL colleagues who universally praise her.

        1. Haha. Now you gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make profess to care about intelligence, knowledge, education, accomplishment and normality. Unfortunately, your unpersuasive, after-the-fact bleatings fails to contradict your support for the incompetent, criminogenic, sociopathic buffoon infecting the white house which is exhibit A for demonstrating what you-and your ilk-truly believe in. So sorry for your loss. Thanks for playing. That ticking sound is getting louder, isn’t it?

          This is from KMRA

      2. Hey David, PoP is not a ‘cult’ it’s an official RC Catholic association with 3 priests and a Bishop as members. Stop willfully embarrassing yourself in public. Thanks.

          1. You just called the Roman Catholic Church a cult since this Association has the imprimatur of the Church and a Bishop appointed by the Pope himself. But by all means, keep embarrassing yourself – it’s entertaining to watch.

      3. ha ha Benson, really? the level of Amy Coney Barrett’s intellect compared to the rest of the PoP is like the level of an eagle flies compared to where the sparrows feed.

        trust me nobody ever accused PoP of being really smart and capable of telling someone like ACB what to think. wow, come on. wooooo, that’s a good one. .

        again these comments reflect ignorance of a subject based on a phantom projected by the cinematic power of mass media. facts are irrelevant when the megaphone speaks

  2. “The President’s Taxes: Long-Concealed Records Show Trump’s Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance

    “The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.

    “Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750. He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made. As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million. …”

    Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. /s

    1. Tax returns are private information. Leaking them is a crime (and a breach of professional ethics.) Capitalizing on crime is what pimps and creeps do. Right up your alley there, Committed.

      1. Sorry you were conned Mespo. Some of us tried to warn you.

        How much did you pay in incomes taxes for 2017 and 2017? Trump paid $750 each year and none for 15 years previous – because he was losing money or lying! Which explanation are you hoping for?

        1. Gainesville:
          Not conned at all. I’m all for tax avoidance. Do it myself whenever I can. Tired of paying for folks like you. You’re the one who claimed illegal activity. You got conned bigly — and again..

          1. Yeah, we get it mespo. In too deep to admit it. The great businessman is a loser hanging on to make the light bill at his DC hotel and treading water while awaiting having to come up with $300 million personally guaranteed in loans coming due within the next 4 years, and a possible reversal of the $72 million tax refund he finagled.
            You and the sucker MAGA crowd at the rallies – hard working but not very bright guys from the feed store, body shop, and assembly line – paid more taxes than he did. He’s who you’re paying for – a welcher living on 5th Ave with a gold toilet seat. Let that sink in Mespo.

            1. Book less:
              I’d take that mind-reading act on the road. Seems we’re finding out now it’s fake news but if he avoided taxes, that’s great. Less money to fund the Deep State is never bad news.

              1. Haha! “FAKE NEWS” !!!! “DEEP STATE” !!!! “PIZZAGATE” !!! MORE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!!! “FOX NEWS”!!! So sorry for your loss. Sometimes the marks are the last to see the con…So sorry for your loss, thanks for playing.

                this is to “that ticking sound is noticeably louder, isn’t it?” mespo the last

              2. Haha! “FAKE NEWS” !!!! “DEEP STATE” !!!! “PIZZAGATE” !!! MORE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!!! “FOX NEWS”!!! So sorry for your loss. Sometimes the marks are the last to see the con…Thanks for playing.

                this is to “that ticking sound is noticeably louder, isn’t it?” mespo the last

                this is from kmar

            1. Not a very smart statement, but what can we expect. Actually Warren Buffetts business plan depends on that type of idea. His investments were geared to paying a low tax rate, low enough to prompt him to say he paid a lower rate than his secretary.

              Do you now see why I think your statement wasn’t smart?

              1. Warren Buffett to Trump in 2016:
                “I’d like to make him an offer, an offer I hope he can’t refuse. He says various things at different times, but at one point, and I think he said it several times, is that he can’t do it, he can’t release it because he’s under audit.
                “I’ve got news for him: I’m under audit, too. And I would be delighted to meet him any place, any time between now and election. I’ll bring my tax return. He can bring his tax return. Nobody is going to arrest us. There are no rules against showing your tax returns and just let people ask questions about the items that are on there. You’re only afraid if you’ve got something to be afraid about.”

                Trump was too afraid to take Buffet up on it.

                Buffet said he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, and Buffett also said that he paid more in taxes than his secretary. But Trump pays less in taxes than his secretary.

                In 2016, Buffet also said “I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year.) I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward,” unlike Trump. According to the news reports at the time, “Buffett said that his 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11.56 million. He had total deductions of $5.48 million, which includes $3.47 million for allowable charitable contributions. He said he paid federal income tax of $1.85 million. Buffett said he made $2.86 billion in charitable contributions for the year. More than $2.85 billion was not taken as deductions.” So Buffett also makes a lot more in charitable contributions than Trump does.

                Comparing Trump to Buffett isn’t particularly smart, but we’re used to that from you.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, along with being Stupid you are a liar. I wasn’t comparing Buffett to Trump rather just mentioning what Buffett did that avoided a lot of taxes. I happen to like Buffett. In my stock portfolio I used Berkshire Hathaway as an index fund to reduce my risk exposure to the market and my other investments. I think he is a smart businessman and I thank him every time I buy a new house, care or anything else that is expensive.

                  If you weren’t so Stupid maybe you would have done the same.

                  1. So you were just trying to distract when you brought Buffett up in response to Leona Helmsley, Trump, and “Only little people pay taxes.”

                    Buffett pays a lot in taxes.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, I told you in clear English why I brought up Buffetts name: ‘ just mentioning what Buffett did that avoided a lot of taxes.”. This was to demonstrate that tax avoidance by using the legal IRS codes is done by most people.

                      You don’t seem to get anything straight.

                    2. Buffett was willing to make his returns public.

                      Trump refuses.

                      Buffett’s statement about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary tells us nothing about “most people.”

                      It doesn’t tell us that Trump’s tax avoidance is legal.

                    3. “Buffett was willing to make his returns public.”

                      Did he? Where? I’d like to spend the next year reading over them.

                    4. If you want to read Buffett’s returns, convince Trump to take Buffett up on the offer he made to Trump.

                      “I’d like to make him an offer, an offer I hope he can’t refuse. He says various things at different times, but at one point, and I think he said it several times, is that he can’t do it, he can’t release it because he’s under audit.
                      “I’ve got news for him: I’m under audit, too. And I would be delighted to meet him any place, any time between now and election. I’ll bring my tax return. He can bring his tax return. Nobody is going to arrest us. There are no rules against showing your tax returns and just let people ask questions about the items that are on there. You’re only afraid if you’ve got something to be afraid about.”

                    5. In other words Warren Buffett is a big talker but didn’t do it. That should tell you something. He offered to do it and whether that was a real offer or not is unknown but Anonymous the Stupid swallows this like he swallows all the leftist drivel.

                      Not only that but Warren Buffett wanted Trump to go first . Then what? Would he renege or provide a bit less than you assume? You don’t know do you?

                      For these promises without guarantees what did Buffett offer that Trump wanted? Nothing. Buffett, however, gets what he wants.

                      If Buffett really believed in the point he was making he would have released his taxes without any pre condition and shown Trump up.

                      To the ignorant, like you, he convinced them of something that wasn’t real but you are too Stupid to understand these things. I hope you are retired or have job security.

                    6. Allan, you’re an outright liar when you say “Warren Buffett wanted Trump to go first”, when Buffet clearly proposed that they’d both bring their returns to a meeting, any place, any time, and both would share them.

                      And then you do your usual, which is to call names.

                    7. Anonymous the Stupid. Buffett set the table. I hope you never have to negotiate anything. That is a rouse. Always make the other one show his cards.

        2. Did Donald Trump break the law, or did he play by the rules. When Rose Kennedy died her will was executed in Florida. She hadn’t lived there in several years. By executing her will in Florida and not Massachusetts the Kennedy family probably saved a million dollars in taxes. But then again these are the saintly Kennedys.

      2. Sorry you were conned Mespo. Some of us tried to warn you.

        How much did you pay in incomes taxes for 2017 and 2017? Trump paid $750 each year and none for 15 years previous – because he was losing money or lying! Which explanation are you hoping for?

      3. Mespo,

        If they were leaked, that’s a crime. If you have evidence that they were leaked, then I suggest that you contact law enforcement and pass along your evidence.

        I don’t know how they were obtained by the Times. I doubt you do either. Maybe they were leaked, or maybe they were provided legally, as occurred when Mary Trump legally provided copies of some of Trump’s tax returns to the Washington Post.

        Regardless of the legality of giving them to the NYT, publishing articles about them is not a crime.

        For the record, Trump himself has capitalized on crimes. Michael Cohen went to jail for the crimes he committed, including making illegal campaign contributions to Trump — the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and the catch-and-kill payment to Karen McDougal — and Trump reimbursed him and benefitted from the stories being hidden. So if you want to argue that “capitalizing on crime is what pimps and creeps do,” OK.

        1. Committed to Lies:
          Except Cohen plead guilty to a set of facts that weren’t criminal to avoid another set of facts that were much moreso. There were no campaign violations as Dershowitz and Turley both proved. If you need more proof, just show us the indictment of Trump. Oh there wasn’t one.

          If you wanna be a lawyer go to law school. Don’t just spend the night conjuring at the Holiday Inn.

          1. “Committed to Lies:”

            Oh, the irony. LOL.

            “just show us the indictment of Trump”

            Are you truly ignorant about the OLC memo?
            “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions”

            Hopefully he’ll be defeated in November and indicted at the end of January.

            “as Dershowitz and Turley both proved”

            You haven’t linked to any proof, and if Trump wants to hire them to represent him at trial, he’s free to do so.

            1. As usual CTDHD provides no evidence rather a generalized law that applies to all.

              I wonder why she keeps doing that but now I have my answer: “Committed to Lies:”

              1. Either Allan the Lazy decided to argue about it without ever reading the memo, or Allan the Stupid wrongly thinks that a memo concluding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” is a law that applies to everyone, or Allan the Liar describes it as “a generalized law that applies to all” because Allan is committed to lies.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, how Stupid can you get? It is generalized. Anyone who becomes President would be subject to the same interpretations.

                  You are too Stupid for words. However, it seems we got you out of the closet and right now you are using your own icon. Does that mean you are now less of a Coward? If so you should be thanking me. I still have to work on your Stupid problem.

                  1. Despite your lie that it’s a “generalized law that applies to all,” it is not a law, and it applies solely to the sitting President.

                    But you are too cowardly to correct your mistake.

                    I’ve always used this icon. Maybe you’re confusing me with others because I piggy-backed on the exchanges between you. If such a simple feature leads you to think we’re the same person, then you might be too Stupid for words.

                    1. No, Anonymous the Stupid. You used this icon before, stopped using it and mostly went to a more generic icon and now you are using it again. You don’t have to lie about it except you do. You are a Coward.

                    2. “But you are too cowardly to correct your mistake.”

                      Again Anonymous the Stupid, you are living up to your name. The rule goes for anyone who is President. Anyone can be President (except for those that do not meet the qualifications) at one time or another in their life. In fact we don’t who will be president in 20 years so my statement that the document applies to all is absolutely correct.

                      Is that now clear to you?

    2. I wonder who has less credibility, NYT or Needs to be Committed. Trump did get a huge tax deduction based on the tax laws in place before he ever got to Washington. This turkey blames Trump for that huge tax loss when she should be blaming the politicians that passed the law.

      However, if one is paying taxes on gains shouldn’t one also get a tax deduction when there is a loss. Why should taxes only be a one way street. If If middle-class Joe is taxed for gains he made in the stock market shouldn’t he receive a credit when he loses money?

        1. Apparently you don’t know anything about tax deductions. It makes sense. You probably filed a standard form that can fit on a postcard.

          That is OK but tell me what did I say that is wrong. Needs to be Committed acts as if it is illegal to follow the tax code.

    3. “The Internal Revenue Service is in a bind. The agency’s job is to collect the taxes that fund everything else in the government, from Social Security to the Post Office to Medicaid to the military’s endless conflicts across the globe. But the IRS is struggling: According to Vox, Americans owe a cumulative $131 billion in unpaid taxes, enough to completely fund the Department of Education for two years. The bulk of that money is owed by the wealthiest people in the country, yet the IRS isn’t attempting to collect it from them. Instead, as IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig confirmed in a letter to Congress recently, the agency literally can’t afford to audit the rich, so it’s pursuing the poor instead.

      “ProPublica has published multiple stories on the sad state of the modern IRS over the past year. They found that a person is more likely to get audited if they make $20,000 a year than if they make $400,000. That’s because it takes a lot less time, money, and people to investigate someone who receives the earned income tax credit, one of the government’s largest anti-poverty programs, than it does to look into the complicated holdings and filings of someone else making 20 times as much. And even further up the economic ladder, things aren’t any better: Millionaires were 80 percent less likely to be audited in 2018 than they were in 2011.

      “This is the direct result of years of conservative-led efforts to successfully defund, defang, and delegitimize the IRS. Over the past eight years, Congress has steadily reduced the agency’s enforcement budget by billions of dollars, down 25 percent from what it was in 2008. And by cutting out only relatively small chunks at a time, the gutting has largely avoided public outcry. Unsurprisingly, according to ProPublica, the IRS is in disarray on the inside, resulting in “a bureaucracy on life support.” ProPublica estimates that as a result, the U.S. is losing at least $18 billion dollars in revenue each year. …”

      1. Despite the fact that the left keeps complaining that the rich are getting away with things they refuse to get rid of the present tax laws and pass a much simpler consumption tax. That likely (with appropriate deductibles) would cause the rich to pay more and the middle class to pay less.

        In reality the wealthiest group that benefits from our crazy tax system supports the DNC. If the middle class is shrinking they are the most likely cause.

      2. ” That’s because it takes a lot less time, money, and people to investigate someone who receives the earned income tax credit, one of the government’s largest anti-poverty programs, than it does to look into the complicated holdings and filings of someone else making 20 times as much.”

        That’s because the accountants for the wealthy educate themselves, sell their expertise and save the wealthy money using tax code legally, all while the 8-5 IRS agents know just enough to audit the middle class. The IRS also realizes the complexity of the code they have written takes so much time to audit returns that the amount of money they would recover is not worth the time.

        And if they know there is $131B unpaid, then they should know who owes it. And if they know who owes it, then they should be collecting it, either through payments or asset confiscation. Why are they not collecting it?

        And why has congress, led by Pelosi in the house not introduced legislation to streamline the tax code if it is so important? Amazon is prime example !ed by the left supporting CEO Jeff Bezos, a company worth billions, revenues in the billions that has yet to pay or has paid.little in increase me taxes. Dont just blame conservatives!!!!!

        1. Ron, who is only blaming conservatives? (Not me.)

          As for “accountants for the wealthy educate themselves, sell their expertise and save the wealthy money using tax code legally,” I expect that’s sometimes true and sometimes false. Manafort, for example, engaged in tax fraud, and the U.S. seized millions.

          1. CTHD, I was the Controller for 35 years for a healthcare organization with non-profit and for-profit entities, with thetotal revenues when I left around $1/2B. Regularily the IRS would audit our returns to insure we paid tax on for profit income and to make sure we were not hiding for-profit entities in not-for-profit entities. Our tax accountants, from one of the top 5 companies in the country would spend almost as much time defending what we did ( how they prepared the returns) as they did educating the IRS auditors on what was done, why and which code was used.

            If Trump did not pay any tax, if Amazon does not pay tax or anyone making $500,000+ does not pay tax its because congress has legislated that.

            And that is why this country needs a flat tax so Amazon, Trump and anyone reporting income pays a specific amount.

            1. I support a significant flat tax with a larger standard deduction.

              But I’m also not going to make any assumptions about any individual’s taxes. I know that many people obey the law, and some people do not, and I have no idea which category Trump, Bezos, and other specific individuals fall into.

              1. Brilliant!

                The IRS is a complete waste and wholly unnecessary as its revenues fund unconstitutional laws, programs and departments.

                How about supporting the Constitution which denies Congress any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity, providing Congress merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” the Constitution which denies Congress the power to regulate anything other than money, commerce and land and naval Forces, and the 5th Amendment right to private property, which is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, denying Congress any power to “…claim or exercise dominion over…” private property?

                The entire welfare state cannot be taxed for and is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

                “[Private property is] “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

                – James Madison

    4. President Trump’s tax returns were obtained from the IRS.

      Violations of tax law are enforced against by the IRS.

      President Trump’s tax data is precisely where the law requires it to be.

      You, as did the traitor and coup d’etat perpetrator, Barack Obama, are attempting to politicize and weaponize the IRS (Lois Lerner should have been and must still be Drawn and Quartered for her abuse of

      power in the name of Barack Obama and her criminal corruption of the Constitution).

      That act would make you a criminal and similarly culpable.

    5. There’s always a tweet:

      Donald J. Trump, April 13, 2012: “@BarackObama who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. Do as I say not as I do.”
      Note that Trump is confusing Obama’s 2011 adjusted gross income with his salary, and the reason that Trump can see this info is because Obama released his tax returns:

      Jul 12, 2012: “Have we ever had a POTUS before @BarackObama who earned over 1/3 of his income from foreign sources and paid taxes to another country?”
      How much of Trump’s income comes from foreign sources?

      Dec 7, 2015: “The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter”
      So does Trump think that he’s screwing the public too?

      1. Executive officers or presidents of large corporations, which commonly do business overseas, are not prohibited from becoming President.

        It is immaterial how many presidents have owned hotels, which by law do not discriminate against foreign national guests, and which are located both domestically and abroad. A hotel will receive tourists as a matter of course. That foreign source of income is not nefarious.

        It’s like bemoaning, have we ever had a president with relatives in Kenya before?

        Also, it is tax accountants and attorneys’ job to utilize every single legal tax deduction and shelter possible for their client. This is not “screwing the public”. When tax preparers advertise not to pay a penny more than you owe, that’s not screwing the public, either. Nor is claiming dependent children or mortgage interest deductions.

      1. If Hunter Biden ever runs for office, you can ask him to release his tax returns.

        Would he choose to follow his dad’s model (and release his returns) or Trump’s model (and refuse to release them)?

        1. Anonymous the Stupid thinks that the Bidens enriching themselves at America’s expense is a good thing. What a turkey.

                    1. Anonymous, You can say what you want but that doesn’t make what you say true or smart. Go back to the rat latrine.

                    2. Allan, You can say what you want but that doesn’t make what you say true or smart. Go back to the rat latrine.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, I see you have returned with friends. None of you can stand up for yourselves alone.

          1. If you’re not a turkey and you think that the Bidens enriching themselves at America’s expense is a bad thing, then you must also think that the Trumps enriching themselves at America’s expense is a bad thing. Who has enriched themselves at America’s expense to a greater extent: the Bidens or the Trumps?

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, how Stupid can you get. Biden enriched himself by selling America down the drain. Trump enriched himself through hard work in the private sector.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, haven’t you been reading the reports I have quoted or cited? You probably were too busy making Stupid statements. I am not going to spend the time right now adding proof about Hunter and Joe’s dealings but I can guarantee you that I will be posting more on this issue of bribery and selling America down the drain by the Bidens. That is unless someone else posts it first.

                  Stay tuned.

                  1. You haven’t quoted or cited anything about the Bidens in this thread, and you also have to prove that “Trump enriched himself through hard work in the private sector.

                    If you ever ask me to prove anything, should I wimp out like you and say “I am not going to spend the time right now”?

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid I previously provided citations of an article that documented Biden’s activities and those citations led to many more including emails, transcripts and other written material. I can’t help it if you were too Stupid to read it then. But I will be posting more but my guess is that you will also be too stupid to read that as well.

                    2. “you also have to prove that “Trump enriched himself through hard work in the private sector.””

                      Anonymous the Stupid, check out the deed and financial papers of Trump Towers.

                      You make yourself out to be more of an a$$ every time you post.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, it seems with the new names you want to prove how stupid you are to them as well.

            2. Who has enriched themselves at America’s expense to a greater extent: the Bidens or the Trumps?

              That’s a legitimate question if you are prepared to objectively consider all available evidence.

    6. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “In 2016, Donald Trump paid 170x more in hush payments to Stormy Daniels than he did in federal income taxes.”

      Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA):
      “This reporting shines a stark light on the vastly different experience people with power and influence have when interacting with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) than the average American taxpayer does. It appears that the President has gamed the tax code to his advantage and used legal fights to delay or avoid paying what he owes. For example, according to this report, President Trump has been engaged in a lengthy audit battle with the IRS that could potentially result in him owing the federal government $100 million.
      “Now, Donald Trump is the boss of the agency he considers an adversary. It is essential that the IRS’s presidential audit program remain free of interference. Today’s report underscores the importance of the Ways and Means Committee’s ongoing lawsuit to access Mr. Trump’s tax returns and ensure the presidential audit program is functioning effectively, without improper influence.
      “I remain confident that the law is on the Committee’s side, and that our request meets the standard the Supreme Court set with its July 2020 rulings. Our case is very strong, and we will ultimately prevail.”

      But Neal has slow walked the legal fight, which is why he had to fight off a primary challenger.

      1. “President Trump has been engaged in a lengthy audit battle with the IRS that could potentially result in him owing the federal government $100 million.”

        This happens all the time and that is what the average voter does not understand. Accountants with large global firms or national firms prepare returns and 3-4 years later the IRS starts auditing, which can take multiple years. Then the find things, they provide the audit, and the accountants review. They find errors and negotiations begin.

        This is all legal, it is normal and it is legal for opposition parties to parse the info, present it and make it appear something illegal is going on without crossing the line. Their lawyers make sure the line to confuse voters has not been crossed.

        1. You say “This happens all the time,” but the next sentence in the quote does *not* happen all the time: “Donald Trump is the boss of the agency he considers an adversary [the IRS].”

          Trump originally said he would release his tax returns (“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely, and I would love to do that.”), but then he refused, and he’s subsequently engaged in multiple court battles in an effort to prevent his returns from being legally subpoenaed.

          1. Politicians lie! One just has to decide which liar is least.offensive in.person or policy. That is what a two party system has created along with a longer life span allowing for two elderly, mentally challenged men to run for an office that could see them either dying in office or completing terms in their late 70’s or 80’s. No one will ever convince me Trump or Biden, along with their VP’s are the most qualified people in America to be President.

            1. Trump and Biden clearly aren’t the best choices for either party. But they’re the candidates, and I believe that Trump is a true danger, so I will vote for Biden.

              Trump didn’t simply lie about making his tax returns public. He’s actively fighting it in court. And over a decade’s worth of Biden’s tax returns are already public.

              That Trump is so deeply in debt to unknown entities should concern people.

              1. What is concerning is that one or more government lizards broke the law and released anyone’s tax returns.

                Obama’s leavings in government are like gangrene. Unless the president amputates the diseased parts the whole will rot.

                1. Both the New York Times and our resident paid trolls would seem to be clueless about the difference between a tax return and a balance sheet.

                  1. Art — “They seem to be clueless about the difference between a tax return and a balance sheet.”

                    I am not sure they care so long as they think they can shape it into a spear to throw at the President. It’s almost a madness with them.

                    1. These people fail to understand that tax returns were supposed to remain private for good reason. There is no law making the President release his tax returns just like there was no law making Obama release all his college records. If one finds either of those problems significant they can pull another lever.

                    2. Allan,
                      Going after Trump regarding his tax returns is just the latest in a long line of efforts to deflect away from his many accomplishments. The Democratic party is no longer a reasonable option because this President has forced them to adopt extreme proposals. When they abandoned safety and security and aligned themselves with anarchists, they sealed their fate. Rational people don’t want a political party that will leverage their constituent’s lives and livelihood to gain power. Democrats are an American political party in name only.

                    3. “Jose” threw up in his mouth a little. I hear this snotty remark sometimes from people who think they are funny. Well, tee-hee!

                      Like the taste of your own bile Jose? Get ready for more, you’re going to be puking your guts out come November

              2. Well Biden scares me as much as Trump. Anyone that support government force to buy a private companies product is way past acceptable to me when the only reason it was done was to provide insurance companies with excess profits. One only needs to look at the profits UHC and others have made since PPACA was approved to see who that really helped.

                Biden China policy has been unacceptable to me (he approved of trade policies supported by both parties benefiting China) and the jobs lost to that country is one of the reasons the gap between the rich and middle class has grown because good paying jobs got shipped to a country with no environmental controls and low cost labor.who put tariffs on our products keeping them out protecting their cheap labor.

                1. Ron P, 80% of lost American jobs since 2000 were due to automation, not foreign competition.

                  The TPP, which the Obama administration negotiated with Pacifc Rim nations, was designed to counter Chinese economic dominance in the region, and is now working quite well for those who joined. We did not, because Trump thinks Obama’s …. is bigger. The TPP also features the most environmental and labor conscious regulations of any trade agreement in history. In contrast, the tariffs Trump put on China are being paid by us and are estimated to cost thetypical American family $2-3k a year. The resulting agreement of last year was roundly reviewed as nice talk with no penalties and little expected in changes.

                  Trump does not have a serious policy for the future, he has a serious ego trip he insists on involving us and the world in every day. Biden has dealt with world problems and world leaders as a leading Senator and as VP for 4 decades. If you care about our future, you’ll vote for someone who doesn’t pretend it’s in our past and all about him (“Only I can fix it!”).

                    1. many factors like offshoring, outsourcing, free trade/ globalization; and robotics & AI have all driven “productivity gains” and a lot of consequential job losses

                      all were significant factors

                      it is not exactly easy to figure out the causal factors in a complex system like national economy

                      also depends on how you categorize the factors. offshoring and outsourcing are two different but related phenomena, both may be aspects of globalization

                    2. Mr. K, I agree completely. And if a company wants to move to China, that is fine with me as long as trade is “fair”. But when Buick builds an Envision in China with vastly cheaper labor and production cost due to cheaper environmental regulations and utility cost, sends that car to America almost duty (tariff) free and Ford sends one of their American produced SUV’s to China with a 25% import tariff, then that is not fair trade. It might be free trade, but unacceptable because it raises the cost of a Ford in China 25% more than the envision . So Ford has a decision to make. Dont sell many in China, or move plants to China and send those cars here. And that is what has happened with many industries since 1990.

                      If we slap tariffs on cheap Walmart products and it saves a few thousand American jobs, thats a good start. Progressives seem to want to increase wages through government action like minimum wage, but do anything that raises prices and saves good paying jobs, they are against it because it increases prices. And the same minimum wage increase would increase prices also. Tariffs just dont fit their political agenda while minimum wage does.

      2. Matt Tait (senior cybersecurity fellow at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law, UT Austin):
        “Like the little story is he pays ~no income tax
        “The bigger story is he sucks at business
        “The much bigger story is there’s v likely accounting fraud
        “But the really big story is the president has a personal liability of hundreds of millions of dollars due and no way to pay it”

        Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof): “It sure would be nice to know to whom the President of the United States owes upwards of $421 million”

        1. The NYT:
          “Mr. Trump has written off as business expenses costs — including fuel and meals — associated with his aircraft, used to shuttle him among his various homes and properties. Likewise the cost of haircuts, including the more than $70,000 paid to style his hair during “The Apprentice.” Together, nine Trump entities have written off at least $95,464 paid to a favorite hair and makeup artist of Ivanka Trump. In allowing business expenses to be deducted, the I.R.S. requires that they be “ordinary and necessary,” a loosely defined standard often interpreted generously by business owners.”

          For hair styling.

          Oliver Darcy: “old enough to remember when the conservative media relentlessly derided John Edwards for his $400 haircuts. at the time, @seanhannity mocked him as the ‘$400 haircut man'”
 — written by John Solomon, LOL

          Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Last year Republicans blasted a firehose of hatred + vitriol my way because I treated myself to a $250 cut & lowlights on my birthday. Where’s the criticism of their idol spending $70k on hairstyling? Oh, it’s nowhere because they’re spineless, misogynistic hypocrites? Got it.”

          1. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Last year Republicans blasted a firehose of hatred + vitriol my way because I treated myself to a $250 …”

            She was actually criticized because she is a hypocrite. Green energy. She has or had a subway near to her but instead used a gas guzzling taxi at taxpayer expense not from her OWN pocketbook like others spent on the item mentioned. The bill to the people for transportation was horrendous and people wondered where all that money actually went. That was just one problem noted about her. Again CTDHD is trying to distort the truth by omission.

              1. Apparently the Chinese pay very well. Leftists “cheat” on their taxes and take bribes from the Chinese. Pictures of Hunter and Joe act as their screen savers.

            1. It depends on which replies of mine you read. If my replies are to the Stupid ones there is very little fact. If my replies are to an issue there is opinion, fact or both. Which category do you belong to? The Stupid or one that deals with issues and principles?

      3. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “In 2016, Donald Trump paid 170x more in hush payments to Stormy Daniels than he did in federal income taxes.”

        And Senator Reid said Romney paid no taxes but later admitted he lied but that it was okay because it worked.

        These people have no honor and nothing they say is worthy of attention or belief.

        1. Romney released his tax returns when he ran for office. Trump didm’t. He has no honor, and nothing he says is worthy of belief.

          1. Obama didn’t release his university papers so I concluded Obama wasn’t a good candidate. I voted for the other guy. You wouldn’t vote for Trump if he released his taxes or if he walked on water so one immediately recognizes why you write such foolishness.

            1. Are you trying to highlight that Trump didn’t release his college papers either?

              Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns isn’t the only strike against him.

              1. How Stupid can you be? Neither Trump nor Obama faced a law making them reveal things they were not prepared to do. You have control over your vote even if you do not have control over your bladder.

                As far as Trump’s taxes I am sure DSS is a supporter of the Parrish for the Stupid. If you ask nicely he will explain to you the difference between a tax form and a balance sheet.

                1. Except for Trump, every President since Nixon has willingly released his tax returns.

                  Trump won’t because he knows that doing it would harm him.

                  1. Except for Trump, every President since Nixon has willingly released his tax returns.

                    And releasing tax returns guaranteed what, scandal-free administrations? Ironically, by not releasing his tax returns, it’s the Democrats and their deep state cohorts that have resorted to the greatest abuse of power ever seen in American history.

                    1. It doesn’t guarantee anything. It does provide meaningful information.

                      Trump commented on information in Obama’s returns, but won’t release his own.

                    2. It doesn’t guarantee anything. It does provide meaningful information.

                      He has a record as President that is far more meaningful than what could be gleaned from his tax returns. Which of course explains all the breathless commentary about this NYT story.

                      Trump commented on information in Obama’s returns, but won’t release his own.

                      He also commented about his record as President. It’s that record and not Obama’s tax returns that led to the Trump victory.

                  2. If everyone around you takes off their clothes, do you do the same?

                    If everyone around you is rioting and looting, do you do the same? Maybe you do.

                    1. “Do you equate releasing tax returns with rioting and looting?”

                      My goodness, you have the mindset of a child. It was an example, actually for children, that just because someone does something one doesn’t have to follow and do it as well.

                      I hope your type of logic doesn’t end up in your child’s head or grandchildren’s head if you have any of those. The way you think I don’t know how you have gotten through life.

                    2. just because someone does something one doesn’t have to follow and do it as well.

                      And someone doing something also doesn’t preclude one from doing it. Whether one should or shouldn’t do it depends on what it is. A President or candidate should release his tax returns.

                    3. The stupidity that comes from your mouth is awful. Thank the Lord that most Americans are not as dumb.

      4. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “In 2016, Donald Trump paid 170x more in hush payments to Stormy Daniels than he did in federal income taxes.” Yet that particular socialist has NEVER offerrf proogf not charged the IRS with complicity.

    7. Claiming to have “obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades,” the NYT admits its findings amount to problems most businesses deal with: “struggling properties, vast write-offs, [and] an audit battle.”

      The article also admits “the filings will leave many questions unanswered, many questioners unfulfilled,” and also kills off the idea that President Trump’s finances were somehow linked to Russia. The piece reads: “Nor do [the tax returns] reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.”

      1. Your source cut off the first quote in order to avoid including text that’s *not* among the “problems most businesses deal with,” namely, “The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.”

        Another relevant quote: “the tax records revealed no previously unknown financial connection [to Russia] — and, for the most part, lack the specificity required to do so…” Also, Russia was not the only country addressed in the report: “The president’s conflicts have been most evident with Turkey …”

        Maybe you should read the NYT article itself instead of relying on the National Pulse.

  3. Catholics need to realize that they are relative newcomers to America. There were only a handful in the country at the time of the founding and they were mostly in Maryland, which was colonized by English Catholics. The mostly Protestant colonists who founded the country were distrustful of Catholicism because of the stranglehold it held on Europe until Henry VIII broke away. Even then, most European countries remained tied to the Roman Church whose bishops dictated to kings and queens. Although some colonists were irreligious, most were not and they left Europe to get away from the Roman church. It wasn’t until large numbers of Catholics immigrated to America from Ireland and Eastern Europe that Catholicism gained a foothold in the United States. I grew up in West Tennessee where there were only a handful of Catholic churches. I never knew but one Catholic before I went into the military. Catholicism – and Judaism – became powerful when America was flooded with Catholic immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As for Barrett, she’ll be just one more Catholic justice on a court made up of Catholics and Jews – and one Anglican, which is just one step removed from Papism.

    1. semcegowetc
      “Catholics need to realize that they are relative newcomers to America.”
      Newcomers? Columbus and Vespucci might disagree there you “come here.” Lol

    2. Jews and Catholics have what WASPS have lost. Identity. To say nothing of a religious background which runs deeper than the tropes of the Enlightenment

      it is no surprise then that the SCOTUS is what it is

  4. JT:
    “ including the service of great Catholic leaders from John Kennedy to Joe Biden to a host of Supreme Court justices. They did not seem to struggle with the “American ethos.” They helped define it.”
    You had me until this line. “[G]reat Catholic leaders”? The first was a serial adulterer who associated with mobsters until they ultimately assassinated him and the second is a corrupt demagogic corporatist in the pocket of the financial/credit card industry whose idea of bribery with impunity is indirect payments and sinecures to his kid. If this is the best we RCs have to show, maybe the anti-Catholic bigots have a point. Thankfully, we have lots of Catholic leaders who were truly great and eclectic like Columbus, Bishop Fulton Sheen and John Wayne. I’d argue they defined the ethos more than the two egotists you cited.

    1. Hi Mespo!

      Good points you make with your comments.

      I have nothing against Barrett for being Catholic, but I’m a bit more then pissed at Trump & Barrett as Barrett very recently had a chance as a judge to rule in favor of American Citizen’s Freedom but instead choose to sell us out to this Police State/Medical Tyranny.

      As everyone can see in Barnes’ video, he points out Barrett’s logic on surrendering up our freedoms was from the same based faulty ruling used for Eugenic Programs, Forced Sterilizations of Citizens, the Korematsu Decision that was used by the govt to round up US Citizens & deprive them of their Rights, etc..

      What the Hell is Next? Govt/Med Tyrants orders us Citizens to load up in Train Box Cars? Is there Nothing we won’t put up with?

      I’m interested in your/others opinions on latest breach of our USC/Rights.

      Because my opinion is that just because there are Power Mad Politicians that scared the hell out of a bunch of people doesn’t mean the rest of us have to give up our USC Rights,…… wear a mask, stay in lock down, close our businesses but Wal Mart, Amazon, big dogs get to stay open etc..

      I wrote this in response to Karen this morning:

      Oky1 says:
      September 27, 2020 at 12:28 PM

      ” Has Barrett had a decision on compulsory vaccination? ”

      What Barrett & others have & are doing is using the wrongly decided Jacobson vs Massachusetts case as precedent that carves out new govt & health care industry exemption, the authority that grants them the ability to deny all of the Citizens Constitutional Rights by the use of force just by the govt/med industry at any time a public health emergency.

      If it’s desired to change the USC the proper way to it is by amending it to include a Public Health Exemption & not by the ongoing use of Judicial Supremacy.

      Barrett’s Opinion:

      This video is about 22 min of Owen Shroyer interviewing Robert Barnes about Judge Barrett & her differences with say a Judge Logoa (Catholic).

    2. Wait. Umm, not so great.

      JFK’s “leadership” led him to a little pow wow in Dallas – you may have heard.

      I was wholly unaware that effective leadership was invariably terminal.

      And “Joke” Biden – from his transcripts and “lost 47 years,” to his videotaped order for corruption and quid pro quo in Ukraine – that pretty much says it all.

    3. who associated with mobsters until they ultimately assassinated him

      Sam Giancana did not organize the assassination of the Presdient and Lee Harvey Oswald had no association with the mob.

      1. Arty:

        Well the CIA set it up and the mob carried it out as a favor to the agency for trying to preserve its assets in Havana. The CIA was miffed over Bay of Pigs so they hatched the plot, made Oswald a fall guy and then made sure he couldn’t talk. You don’t think Oswald could carry this out on his own do you?

        1. He does. we been down this road before

          I don’t think the mafia did it. Though they hated JFK for turning on their alliance with his father. & Sam Giancana was not capable of such a thing.

          I favor the CIA assets did it theory. Perhaps a plot green lighted by LBJ, organized by Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey, David Morales, also involving E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, & Lucien Sarti

          then CIA helped cover it up. McCone approved.

          that CIA lied to the Warren Commission and the HSCA is now a matter of solid historical record

          I know this is gonna piss Art off badly, I am still smarting from the last scolding he gave me about this, I just cant’ get myself to believe Oswald and his magic bullet did it all alone

          1. Giancana was a pest and Joe Batters had to punch his ticket for incompetence. I can’t imagine it, too far beyond his abilities. He couldnt get to Castro.

            The idea he was killed by CIA before he was due to testify to Church committee is ridiculous. No evidence. Plus the Outfit had plenty of reasons to terminate him that had nothing to do with that.

            I think the mafia guys that claim they had a big part in this are all just selling books.

            1. Wasn’t the day JFK was killed on the same day as the “take your daughter to work day’ when Hillary’s dad took her with him to Dallas? Wasn’t that on the same day? LOL;)

            2. BTW:

              Alex Jones’ even has Hillary on tape confessing to the crime: “We came, we saw, he died” it even has her allowing laugh. lol

          2. Agreed, Kurtz. Just can’t get around several factors, not the least of which being there were more bullet fragments than Oswald could’ve fired himself.

            And it begs the question of why Trump is still here. Only his swamp creature trait of talking trash in public while secretly greasing up the checkbook in the background saves him it seems.

          3. There was no magic bullet. There was an ordinary bullet. The notion that there was a magic bullet was promoted by Josiah Thompson, a fairly sensible researcher. His problem was that he relied on a schematic drawing of the limousine which had the Governor and his wife each sitting directly in front of Gov. Connolly and his wife, respectively. Gov. Connolly was actually seated on a meridian about 6″ to the President’s left and in a jump seat several inches closer to the ground. The wounds line up adequately with the trajectory to the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.

            Here’s the thing, the trajectory of the Kennedy neck would runs downward from back to front. Unless there’s a little gnome on the floor of the limo by Nellie Connolly’s feet, that bullet came from behind. The bullet which hit Gov. Connolly was also on a downward trajectory back to front (and tumbling). It has to be from the back as well. They also found bullet fragments in the windshield which did not come from the shot that hit the Governor, because that bullet lodged insecurely in his leg and fell out on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital. A man named James Tague, standing in front of the limousine and to it’s left, was hit in the face with a flying piece of asphalt. That’s commonly hypothesized to have been the effect of the 1st bullet missing the limo and striking the pavement. The head shot looks from the footage like it came from behind and to the right. However, bullets have back spatter and front spatter. The volume of the latter is much larger than that of the former. We know from the oral testimony that the back spatter was a liquid mist which hit a motorcycle cop behind and to the left of the limousine. The front spatter hit the Connollys. John Connolly was in tears while his wife described what hit them. He saw a piece of the President’s brain on his thing about the size of his thumb.

            Police officers visited Ruth Paine’s home and spoke to Marina Oswald. Yes, Lee has a rifle. He keeps it in the garage out here. She leads them out there, and the rifle isn’t there. They eventually locate the invoice for the rifle which has the alias he used to buy it, and the locate the photograph that Marina Oswald (by her admission) took of him with that same rifle in the summer of 1963. That’s the same rifle they find at the sniper’s nest in the School Book Depository. He car pooled to work that morning with another employee who said he carried a package that morning which he said were ‘curtain rods’. After they apprehend him, they apply a paraffin test and, yes, he’d fired a weapon that day.

            His foreman took a roll call of his staff after the assassination. One member of the staff was missing. The staff member in question murdered a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses later in the day. It was after that he was apprehended. That man was Lee Harvey Oswald. No clue why you fancy someone else killed the President.

          4. I favor the CIA assets did it theory. Perhaps a plot green lighted by LBJ, organized by Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey, David Morales, also involving E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, & Lucien Sarti

            It’s a historical event, not a spy novel. You don’t accomplish anything by letting your imagination run wild.

            1. Have you never hunted, killed & butchered something… like a deer? The bullet enters the deer & the exits, blowing out the other side.

              I have you seen the video of the event from a different angle?

              Seems like there used to be a nice Oak Tree there & a bunch of other issues.

    1. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Coral, I wanted to ask you — in terms of some of the hair-raising descriptions in your memoir of what happened to you, I wanted to ask you if you could talk about some of those. You talk about the situation where the head, that was assigned to you and your husband, wanted to see the family budget, that he told you how many hours per day you could spend on particular chores, including two to four loads of laundry a day, this meddling directly in the day-to-day — in your day-to-day life and affairs with you and your family, and that you also mention that once you decided that you wanted to leave, that they threatened to try to have you committed to a mental institution?

      CORAL ANIKA THEILL: They would call me mentally ill. And there was a time they had me under special counseling, under Father Charles Harris, who was the head leader of the Corvallis People of Praise branch. He was from South Bend.

      But basically, there was just cruelty and bullying, and it was not much difference than the Jim Jones cult. I shared with Heidi that my story is very much like The Handmaid’s Tale series and the Netflix series 10-part documentary The Keepers.

      Other things, yeah, there was always a list on my wall, a schedule, and men from the community would come unannounced to check on me to make sure I was on schedule and had done my chores. There was basically no privacy. And all of your personal — anything personal was given to your husband’s head also. I wasn’t allowed contraceptives and was supposed to have all the children God intended for me, no matter what my health was. I had had eight children and three miscarriages and D&C, often when my health was failing.

      1. Sounds bad but why is the kooky lady smiling?

        If I had been tortured I wouldn’t be smiling about it

        something off there. she smiled the whole time.

        I will say this. sometimes people with mental illness are drawn to tightly knit religious groups. that’s a two way street.
        I’m a little wary of PoP, not too interested in getting to the bottom of all the peculiarities there, i can accept that it’s a mixed bag without specifically accepting this lady’s allegations

        nonetheless, this proves nothing about Amy Coney Barrett, per se, even to the extent it reflects poorly on PoP that a former member was so disenchanted.
        we could find a lot of disenchanted members from other religious communities and it would be unfair to paint all members with a broad brush of association

    2. Haven’t you heard, Harris-Biden are ahead in all the polls.

      Harris-Biden are going to win in a landslide.

      You communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are getting desperate.

      You didn’t just post a “Hail Mary,” did you?

      1. Clearly Bacon’s Law will magically connect this woman to Barrett’s judicial philosophy. Is Hale-Bopp scheduled to make another pass this year?

  5. About People of Praise:

    “As U.S. Supreme Court nomination looms, a religious community draws fresh interest

    By Daniel Trotta

    5 MIN READ

    (Reuters) – People of Praise, a self-described charismatic Christian community, has faced renewed interest since U.S. President Donald Trump put one of its purported members, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on his short list of candidates for elevation to the Supreme Court.

    The group says on its website it is made up of liberals and conservatives, with a mixture including Roman Catholic and Pentecostal traditions, though at least one expert and a former member consider it very conservative. Until 2018, it used the term ‘handmaid’ for its female leaders.”

            1. Anonymous plays guessing games. She posts things that sound good to her but we cannot expect more from one with so little intellectual ability.

    1. So what? Many groups have such names. For instance, the Elk Lodges have a Grand Exalted Ruler, Grand Secretary, Grand Esteemed Leading Knight, and many other titles.

      Who cares? It’s a charity and volunteer organization.

      The advantage of choosing originalist judges is that a Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Mormon, and atheist should all arrive at similar conclusions with cases. This is because they apply the law as it is written, rather than the current Liberal trend of trying to imagine what the law would have meant if it was penned by a modern Liberal.

      Perhaps if the entire bench took this approach, there would not be this hysteria and panic on both sides as to which political party shall pick nominees. The Supreme Court is rapidly being reduced to a political, unelected ruling body. Whoever makes the rules, rules. They just leave it to the bureaucrats to administer.

  6. Papism indeed!

    Harris-Biden are ahead in all the polls.

    Harris-Biden are going to win.

    What are the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) so desperately afraid of?

    The prevaricators are hard at work attempting prestidigitation, misdirection and obfuscation with Newspeak.

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    1. “But hey, it’s over! The Rock just endorsed Biden-Harris and if we need someone to go and physically throw Trump out of the WH, he’s up to it.”
      He couldn’t throw up. He’s a meat head – like his admirers.

      1. Previous to Covid he was the only guy who could open a new movie promotion by himself. The Rock is the actor with the most promotional weight in the entertainment business today.

  7. This is how the Left has fundamentally transformed the Democratic party.

    When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.

  8. For the record, I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic high school in Chicago.

    Fidel Castro was raised Catholic and attended a Jesuit high school (Colegio Belen)
    Josef Stalin was raised Russian Orthodox and studied to be a priest at the seminary in Tiflis
    Mao Zedong was raised by a mother who was a devout Buddhist and later studied Confucianism

    Thus Turley is in very famous company with his, albeit tiresome reference, religious history. It is also true he shows no signs of Catholic maturity in the intellectual, philosophical nor spiritual domains.

    “Why Jonathan, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world [Matt. 16:26]. But for Wales?”

  9. Jonathan: Trump nominated Judge Amy Barrett for a good reason. Just before Justice Ginsburg died polls showed Biden with a 12 point lead over Trump among Catholic voters principally because of the latter’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic, racial unrest and Trump’s divisive rhetoric and policies. Trump hopes the nomination of Barrett will change the dynamic–at least among conservative Catholics in critical battleground states. On November 3rd, or shortly after, we will find out if Trump’s Hail Mary pass (to use a religious metaphor) actually worked. Despite all the rhetoric in this country about the “separation of church and state” every nominee to the Supreme Court must articulate some belief in “God”. The controversy around Barrett’s religious views could have been avoided had Trump nominated an agnostic or atheist. Don’t expect any president to do that anytime soon. That would be just too “controversial”.

    I don’t detect any particular “anti-Catholic” animus in coverage of Judge Barrett’s religious views. By choosing Barrett, the darling of the conservative Federalist Society, Trump has gone way outside mainstream Catholicism. Barret embraces a cult version of Catholic teachings. Barrett is a member of “People of Praise”. a secret Catholic covenant community, that believes the “heads” of family (men) should make all family decisions. People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors. The group’s handbook says that sex outside marriage–whether gay or straight–is not in keeping with “God’s plan for human sexuality” The small group opposes abortion and homosexuality. By any definition People of Praise is a “cult” and, therefore, Barrett is a “cult member”. It would be naive to believe Barrett’s extreme religious views will not shape her opinions on abortion, the ACA or other important social issues before the Court. She has already expressed her narrow view on sexuality in her decisions and elsewhere. That’s why her nomination is so controversial and her religious views deserve close scrutiny.

    Now Barrett may, as you say, be a “true intellectual” –whatever that means. But that standing alone should not be the only basis for confirming her. Arguably, Judge Garland is also an “intellectual” with apparently no religious baggage–and his nomination by President Obama came early in the election year. But McConnell refused to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination because McConnell argued the Court vacancy should be filled by the next president. McConnell’s hypocrisy is breathtaking!

    1. Dennis:
      You missed that talking point about her adoption of two Haitian waifs being bogus. Both other than that, you’re on the Soros Honor Roll. Oh and resurrecting that Merritt Garland vampire story just sounds corny and sour grapish. Awfully vegetarian, you know. Drop it in the next dispatch.

    2. Is Dennis the sort of person who says that Trump’s support of the Jewish State of Israel is a something or other to American Jewry?

      Be careful before you start in on Catholics as a group, that is a perilous game that Catholics have had the best of in the long run, since the time of Nero around 64 AD

  10. It’s strange. Most Catholics, even observant ones, believe in separation of church and state. I have never met a Catholic who believes the Popes voice on Constitutional matters is more important than our Constitution. I have met a lot of leftists, whose religion is leftism, that will act to illegally alter the Constitution and the law.

    IMO, The best way to look at it is that most Catholics, other Christians and Jews believe in the statement made by Jesus: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

    Perhaps Muslims believing in Sharia Law are most similar to the left who have adopted leftism as their religious replacement. Both of them believes their ideology preempts the law and both will do unseemly things to get their way.

    1. LOL. The pope has never been considered “infallible” beyond certain criteria. The Left thinks by subverting the Church and papacy via the Vatican 2 Protestantization (and installation of what Abp. Vigano calls the “parallel church”) of the Church proper they are killing the Faith. Nope. Those with eyes to see have those eyes on the One, True God. Leftists have abandoned objective morality, and therefore, God. Judge the fruit.

    2. There was a preference for the confessional state, but that preference was not dogmatic in character. There was a quotation from Pius IX to the effect that nowhere was he more truly pope than the United States, because the operations of the Church were not regulated by the instruments concluded between the Holy See and the various confessional states. (Such things as episcopal investiture were commonly a function of kings). You have some traditionalists who profess to favor the confessional state and other features of medieval society, but these people are hobbyist intellectuals. (You see their views among some contributors to New Oxford Review, The Remnant, The Wanderer, Catholic Family News, and The Latin Mass. I’m fond of these publications, but not of these excursions).

      What these complaints about Barrett and Scalia do not acknowledge is that the composition of the law can be (now and again is) instructed by moral understandings Moral understandings are arrived at through philosophical and theological discourse. Moral discourse occurs within a matrix of metaphysical understandings. However, the law is what it is, whether its composers were conscientious and properly instructed while they were at their labors. What’s significant about the Catholic adherence of several of the justices is that it provides visceral resistance to a project of twisting yourself into knots trying to justify bad case law in certain realms. Once upon a time, Catholic education incorporated some study of Scholastic philosophy as well, but it’s been a while since that was the case (though Barrett may have sought it out).

      1. DSS, this is excellent. Deep religious study whether Catholic, Christian (all others) or Jew can help accelerate one’s ability to understand the law. Some of my best attorneys had deep training in the Talmud.

        1. Talmudic discourse is indeed excellent legal training. At times it seems to tie logic into pretzels. I am a goy and have no such training, but have read Talmud and see the value of its study as mental exercise.

          There is a genuine question as to whether or not the traditional teaching preferring the confessional state is not dogmatic. I have heard different views

          Amy Coney Barrett is certainly NOT a Catholic Integralist, but such a notion regains currency at this time

          1. Kurtz, find a Chabad in your area and see if they know of a Talmudic scholar near you. Have a talk. If he is good the logic will cleanly flow.

    3. It seems to me that this important publication “Dignitatis Humanae” affirms the freedom of the individual to make conscientious choices.

      However, there is a teaching in Catholic tradition that the Church’s moral dogma is not to be disregarded when the state forms positive laws.

      This is part of the understanding of the cryptic phrase, “render unto Caeser… and render unto God”

      a democratic government, at least in theory, can certainly reflect a legitimate respect for religious teachings, whether that government is a democracy in Israel or in Italy.

      we can also have a conversation about the edges of that dynamic

  11. This is a red herring. Cant find anything else, so use religious bigotry to attaci the nominees reputation. How about doing research on her rulings and writings and attack those.

    1. Yes, in one of my earlier comments, I noted that there are plenty of writings to ask her about, such as: “Adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education” and in the same article about “the arguably unconstitutional state of West Virginia” and “the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment,” where footnotes refer the reader to other writings “exploring originalist arguments that the admission of West Virginia to the United States did not comply with the Constitution” and “that irregularities in the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment pose a problem for originalism.”

      1. Three thoughts.
        1. Democrats will use most all of these, but I suspect 40% or more of their time will be Roe v Wade
        2. Most Americans will pay no attention
        3. Senate will vote, Susan Collins and Joe Manchin will make a deal, Collins will vote against confirm due to moderate left leaning Maine voters and Manchin will vote for confirm due to right leaning West VA. Shumer may “allow” Jones from Alabama to vote for confirm to try and maintain that seat also. (Politicians have a track record of giving up long term security for short term gains. In this case, SCOTUS for senate control)

  12. As I said yesterday, are we really worried that a catholic won’t get a fair shake in the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process when 5 of the 8 justices are catholic and it will be most likely be 6 of 9 in about a month?

    1. Is she a Newchurch Vatican 2 “Catholic”, or a “Radtrad” adherent to the magisterium, Tradition of the Faith, and Scripture? I find it VERY interesting that the satanists/communists have taken to attacking ACB as a “handmaid”, the description the Queen of Heaven used to describe herself as she submitted to the Holy Spirit. We are in a spiritual battle. There are no “Democrats” or Republicans”. There are followers of Christ, those on the Path, and the tares committed to furthering evil. May they have a “Road to Damascus” experience.

  13. The left as far as they can lean NYT has always been against anything that supports our Constitutional Republic and for anything that supports the return of full on socialism since the 1998 fall of the Soviet Union, They took it on themselves to replace Pravda and see it’s working they produced Schumer and Ocasio.

Leave a Reply