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. more ballot harvesting by Democrats– Madison Wis– “paid for by Biden for Potus” — bags full of absentee ballots offered to whomever shows up– offered 2 weeks in advance of when law authorizes it, big bags given to 200 some workers dispersed to parks. totally illegal!

    cute, huh?

    https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1310661982446481409?s=20

    looks like conspiracy to violate election laws. maybe the Madison prosecutor will look into it? lol, of course not

      1. hmm, well, I guess it’s a question of law then, if the facts are not in dispute. i would not hazard trying to figure out Wis law.

    1. Kurtz, don’t you have any standards?

      “…City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl defended the program Friday, disputing conservative criticism that the event constitutes either illegal ballot harvesting or illegal early voting, which otherwise can’t start until about two weeks before the Nov. 3 election. The cease-and-desist letter does not affect the event and it will continue as planned, she said.

      She noted the program involves city poll workers, who are deputized to receive ballots. Ballot harvesting involves the illegal collection of ballots by non-poll workers to be delivered to election officials or ballot boxes. The event also does not amount to early voting because ballots will not be provided to voters who come out. The poll workers will be receiving ballots from those who requested and received absentee ballots.

      Conservative lawyer Rick Esenberg, whose law firm has taken up several GOP-supported causes, said in an interview Friday he didn’t plan on challenging the event in court unless it involved non-poll workers or involved distributing ballots….”

      https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-gop-leaders-send-cease-and-desist-letter-to-madison-clerk-ahead-of-ballot-collection/article_16e113e2-5e7e-5ebf-b164-a630ab2daa3c.html

      1. your article continues

        “Nonetheless, Vos and Fitzgerald questioned its legality and security.

        “Poll workers will attempt to collect absentee ballots at over 200 unsecured, outdoor locations, and only deliver these ballots to the City Clerk’s Office at the end of the six-hour campaign,” Tseytlin, of the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, wrote in the letter to Witzel-Behl. “There could be no justification for this ad hoc, unsecure, and unlawful approach that your campaign appears to be creating.” ”

        its seems we have a difference of opinion as to the propriety of this particular event. I celebrate your right to express yourself although I do not agree

  2. Walter Shaub (former Director of the Office of Government Ethics):
    “The @nytimes article on Trump’s tax returns is a brilliant piece of reporting. But I found one minor error in it that makes the story even worse for Trump. The NYT reported that executive branch financial disclosure filers “simply report revenue, not profit.” This is incorrect./1

    “Under 5 CFR § 2634.302(b) Trump had to report the money he personally *received* from the business. The distribution is gross, rather than net, only in the sense that he must report the amount distributed to him before he paid his own personal taxes. Trump paid $750 in taxes. /2

    “The error in the NYT article appears to come from thinking that the financial disclosure report is for disclosing income of his businesses (i.e., the Trump Organization). It is not. The financial disclosure report is for disclosing income Trump personally received from them. /3

    “Thus, the disparity between Trump’s financial disclosure report and his tax returns is even more significant than reported. If he knowingly and willfully falsely reported income in his financial disclosure report, he violated the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. § 104. /4

    “If the false disclosure is “material,” it could be a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Given that the president’s not subject to the conflict of interest law and, as a result, the entire framework for presidential ethics is based on disclosure alone, one might argue it is material./5

    “This is not the first question regarding Trump’s disclosures. Recall that he omitted his debt to Michael Cohen for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. OGE found that he should have disclosed that debt and notified the Justice Department. /6

    “A pattern emerges in which the errors in Trump’s financial disclosure reports appear to benefit him. The fact that the corrupted Justice Department won’t prosecute — or even investigate — him is irrelevant. What matters is that this conduct is disqualifying for the presidency. /7”
    https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1310629391123329026 (the thread has images with text from the relevant laws)

    Yet another reason that Congress should be able to subpoena his returns: to check them against his financial disclosure forms.

    1. The IRS can review any tax return they desire. I don’t see anything in this long list of things that is significant nor do I see any that would mean Trump cheated on his taxes. CTDHD likes innuendo so she provides meaningless lists. Then she comes up with a statement that Congress should be able to subpoena his returns. Pure partisan BS that even at the worst will not save Biden’s run for the Presidency.

      1. “I don’t see anything in this long list of things that is significant” = “I’m ignorant about this but will pretend not to be.”

        A law already exists that allows Congress to subpoena tax returns, but Trump has been fighting the congressional subpoena for his returns in court. The financial disclosure forms are required by the Ethics in Government Act and aren’t part of IRS’s domain.

        1. Nothing is even close to reasonable evidence except the one issue much of Washington is guilty of and little if any significance. Congress does what they do, no question. Democrat mayors permit rioting and looting, no question. Defund the police with violence on the rise supported by democrats no question. Where democrats are concerned anything can happen. As I posted a while ago it seems the DNC had a Russian spy in their midst that they seem to have colluded with.

          I wish not to insult you but PaintChips keeps replying to me using new names and icons so I have to assume you are that turkey who spends his time in the nail salons doing… If you are not PaintChips I am sorry in advance but that is the nature of the leftists on this blog that can’t stop using multiple aliases and multiple icons. I guess they have no choice when their stupidity indices go over the top.

              1. The Dems are ‘throwing shit’ at people who have been ‘throwing shit’…, so it’s okay, according to Allan. He contradicts himself.

                1. You are attempting again to put words in other people’s mouth. That is typical when you have nothing to say. Democrats do riot, loot and steal. Democrat leaders support the rioting, looting and stealing. You are as bad as they come.

                  As far as what I said, I *returned* the sh1t you leave all over the place. You is anonymous. You.

                    1. He can’t. Allan is unable to walk away. Even after another anonymous commenter apologized to United States of Bug about feeding Allan, Allan responded with more trolling. The guy needs help.

                    2. “The guy [Allan] needs help.”

                      That he does.

                      He’s definitely one of those guys who has to have the last word.

                    3. “He’s definitely one of those guys who has to have the last word.”

                      …And that is why you keep replying. and whining that I won’t give you the last word. Dumb as a door knob.

                    1. You spoke to me you arrogant a$$ and then you commented again to me. You are the troll. Which former poster you are is hard to say at this moment. Stop trolling and then crying about the responses. Go visit PaintChips in the nail salon. Cry with him you fool.

                    2. I spoke to you about your ignorant response to the OP. You doubled down on the ignorance, deflected to a whine about Democrats, and now pretend that I’m crying.

                      None of which had to do with the OP. Since you said that you don’t see anything in the OP that’s significant, read up on Trump v. Mazars and the Ethics in Government Act, and if you’re half as smart as you seem to think you are, then you’ll understand the significance. Or you can wallow in your ignorance and continue whining.

                    3. Bill, take note that claims made by you that do not state what they are means that you are making things up. Plus you are trolling which is your business, but you communicated with me not visa versa. You inserted yourself again and again. Now you are crying about my trolling you? What type of baby are you?
                      ,
                      I responded to your remark to me. You haven’t said anything beyond an ad hominem and certainly nothing of substance.

                      You are another empty poster much like the rest of the anonymous group. You can talk to them directly in the rat latrine. As far as content you are another worthless fool. Try trolling elsewhere. Your part yellow icon reveals too much.

                    4. Your admission that don’t know what they mean, Allan, only reconfirms your ignorance about the OP. The OP explicitly mentions the Ethics in Government Act and refers to Trump v. Mazars without naming it, where it talks about Congress subpoenaing Trump’s returns. Which you’d recognize if you’d understood what the OP was addressing.

                      I responded to you to point out that your initial response was ignorant. And you trolled in response, and here you go again, trolling and trying to deflect the conversation away from the substance.

                      Read up on Trump v. Mazars and the Ethics in Government Act, and if you’re half as smart as you seem to think you are, then you’ll understand the significance of what was quoted in the OP. Or continue to whine and remain ignorant.

                    5. Bill, when dealing with Stupid people that come out of nowhere and are likely new aliases already on the blog or have been here previously I don’t bother trying to figure out what they are trying to say. That is your responsibility if you wish a direct response. I also don’t deal with your conclusions about my abilities. I don’t have to. You have already proven yourself not worth very much.

                      I answered your question. If it was inadequate to you, you had the opportunity to question further. Instead you acted as a troll again and Stupidly at that.

                      You don’t have to tell me what to read and I don’t have to know any specific thing you are interested in. Stupid people use such specifics as a rouse so since you are a troll I need not address anything you said.

                      On the other hand you might have an interesting point that I might also find interesting. That would be what this blog is intended for so if you are interested in that subject matter you can specifically ask a question making it totally understandable without assuming the other party recognizes your particular interest.

      2. Allen is still in denial of his basic nature: oblivious to anything that doesn’t fit his script.

        Everyone is incompetent according to Allen. Everyone has to argue his argument — there are no other options. He will play the semantics of ‘what is “it”‘ until he himself is confused. And then, he will insult for days.

        Allen is a dense MF.

        I remember when he first showed up. Such ‘grand’ posts with Olly discussing natural rights, only to drag others into the gutter, including Olly. Meanwhile Mespo is prancing around in his high school wrestling uniform (highly altered, I assure you) talking about guns and ammo.

        What a farce these three people are.

        Allen is the current driver of the clown car, at least until PCS returns.

        1. “Everyone is incompetent according to Allen.”

          Only the stupid ones mostly named Anonymous and a few others. Are you going to join the rat latrine group. They will accept you with open hands. Be careful you don’t get soiled with their Sh1t. I hope you don’t troll and then cry like Bill.

          1. Allan,

            You have been obsessed with the trolls of DSS’s paranoia for much too long. I commented years ago that people respond to your post’s because they despise you.

            Do you expect a heavily traveled blog to have comments only restricted to you, Olly, Mespo, CB Squeek, and a few others? Darren tried to pull this trick off a few years ago, he was successful for a while, but has gotten slapped down for some time now.

            You’re a toasted puppy, Allan. Your comments have been nothing but childish insults for years now.

            You’ve offered no arguments for a long time, you’re just a place where the sun doesn’t shine.

            1. Haversham, you are delusional and a bit paranoid with some delusions of grandeur but all you really are is a more wordy anonymous the Stupid.

              “Your comments have been nothing but childish insults for years now.”

              I respond to people in kind and you you haven’t earned anyone’s respect. But to others I debate honestly and openly with substance. If you want substance change your clothes, take a shower and look around. I have been having an interesting debate with Prairie. If you can keep the rat sh1t out of the discussion you can join.

              1. You don’t debate honestly, Allan. You may have an honest conversation with someone that you generally get along with, like when you disagreed with John Say about something, but when you debate someone you dislike, you’re dishonest and condescending.

                1. You lie.

                  When someone has a different point of view but is intelligent I respect that person even if we disagree. Prairie and I have a major disagreement over defining a principle having to do with the school system. She vigorously protects what she believes but doesn’t act like a cheap piece of trash I am accustomed to from you and your friends. I am learning things from her and I hope she is learning something from me.

                  Turley has always been center left. I don’t agree with his political stance but I respect his legal authority because he is knowledgeable and attempts to remove personal bias. Listen to your leftist friends that are virtually cursing at him for his legal views because on an issue he felt the Constitution sided with Trump. That cursing is what you consider good dialogue. Your new friends act in similar fashion to your old ones.

                  I don’t think you are capable of an intelligent discussion. That is why so many quotes come from you without a point. The information is frequently stale and selective. If you carried a name and even if your viewpoints weren’t the most knowledgeable but you were open to discussion you wouldn’t be having the problems you have.

                  People are not nice to people that trash them. Think. “Deplorable’s” trashes half the bloggers but you guys do it all the time. It is true that the right will respond with put Hillary in jail, but they will list and debate the reasons for doing so. Debate is something you guys forget. You are better at rioting and looting.

                  1. Allan, time to suck it up and face the music, bud. Yes, that’s right, two cliches necessary to quantify your tired game. Rule of thumb: when a bunch of people all point out roughly the same thing it’s time to pay attention. Do it for your family or something.

          1. That +10 is in response to Jose, with one correction:

            “Everyone is incompetent according to Allen.”

            Only those who disagree with him, it would seem.

                    1. As Jose said:

                      “You’re a toasted puppy, Allan. Your comments have been nothing but childish insults for years now.

                      You’ve offered no arguments for a long time, you’re just a place where the sun doesn’t shine.”

                      Anonymous owns you, Allan.

    2. I hope that the DC Circuit rules in favor of the House after the upcoming arguments. This new info only underscores the legitimacy of the subpoena.

  3. Meanwhile, President Trump nominated for a third Nobel Peace Prize.

    Unlike the former office holder, Trump has actually earned his for working hard for PEACE rather than getting an affirmative action prize.

  4. And the lies keep on coming from NYT and their apparatchiks like Committed to Hate:

    “Trump PAID, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Note also that most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded. The $750 figure is an ADDITIONAL $750. Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.“

    It is not simply a lie, it proves that the person making the statement either did not read the story itself (BY THE INSANITY OF CTHULHU READ THE SOURCES) or lack the mental ability to comprehend that the NYT itself claims that Trump paid $1,000,000 in 2016 and $4,200,00 in 2017.

    The claim that Trump paid only $750 in Federal taxes in 2016 and 2017 is thus a complete and total lie which is easily disproven by the Times own story. I mind when people lie. I mind more when people lie to me about something I can disprove in minutes.”

    So Trump overpaid in previous years reducing his current liability; the NY Slime lied yet again; and Committed dutifully repeated the lie. Situation Normal All F’ed Up!

    1. Scott Greenfield has interesting remarks about NYT revelation

      https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/09/28/taxing-times-for-trump/

      …was it wrong for some thief in the night to reveal this personal data to the Times? Was it wrong, albeit not illegal, for the Times to publish it? Dean Basquet, the Executive Editor, explains.

      “We are publishing this report because we believe citizens should understand as much as possible about their leaders and representatives — their priorities, their experiences and also their finances. Every president since the mid-1970s has made his tax information public. The tradition ensures that an official with the power to shake markets and change policy does not seek to benefit financially from his actions.”

      As a general statement, this is fine. As a specific statement, this falls short. The Times hasn’t disclosed the documents in its possession, because, as Basquet explains:

      “We are not making the records themselves public because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who have taken enormous personal risks to help inform the public.”

      Totally understandable from the snitch’s perspective, but that means we’re constrained to accept the Times’ characterization of what the docs say, and what it means. You can protect your source or you can reveal the documents. Can you do both? Maybe. If you are so trustworthy that no one would doubt either your word or your “truth” about what it means. Too bad the Times gave that away. The 1619 Project comes to mind as a recent example.

    2. Yep!

      And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Everyone’s tax returns should be made public and accessible on the IRS site forthwith.

      I can’t wait to see the Biden family’s tax returns, the Clintons’, Lois Lerner’s, etc.

    3. LOL that you’re quoting https://twitter.com/alexthechick, who describes herself as “Boobs and hysteria” and whose avatar looks like a Dom.

      You claim the NYT lied, but you don’t quote any lie.

      The NYT story states: “Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.”

      Your own source drew on that when she claimed “the NYT itself claims that Trump paid $1,000,000 in 2016 and $4,200,00 in 2017” and “most of the overpayment was rolled forward.”

      The NYT continued, “To cancel out the tax bills, Mr. Trump made use of $9.7 million in business investment credits, at least some of which related to his renovation of the Old Post Office hotel, which qualified for a historic-preservation tax break. Although he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all, his accountants appear to have carved out an allowance for a small tax liability for both 2016 and 2017. When they got to line 56, the one for income taxes due, the amount was the same each year: $750.”

      Your source mistakenly claims “The $750 figure is an ADDITIONAL $750.”

      It’s not additional!

      And you and she ignore the more significant issue, so I’ll repeat for you a quote from Matt Tait (currently a senior cybersecurity fellow at UT Austin, previously an information security specialist for GCHQ in the UK):
      “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”

      And we don’t know who he owes the money to. This kind of debt raises national security concerns.

      1. And we don’t know who he owes the money to. This kind of debt raises national security concerns.

        He’s been in office for nearly 4 years, what evidence exists that reflects President Trump’s alleged debt is a national security concern?

          1. Right. Since the Democrats couldn’t pry that evidence out of them over the last 4 years, what they think is of no concern to me. In fact, the evidence proves how they think is a national security concern.

            1. right olly., the very same keystone cops. CIA, which was running Carter page to try and get dirt from Russians, and FBI which was intentionally and falsely swearing to a FISA court he was a Russian agent. Wow, talk about who’s on first!

        1. There are plenty of decisions he’s made that aren’t in our national security interests.

          As a simple example, he has not worked to protect us from continued foreign election interference.

          If you want more examples, there’s plenty to read from diverse sources who work in national security. A few examples:
          https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/25/donald-trump-fails-us-national-security-interests/
          https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2020/02/05/why-the-trump-organization-is-a-national-security-risk/
          Bolton’s book

          Are his debts linked to those decisions? We’d need to know more about who the creditors are. It’s a concern that we don’t know.

          If you don’t agree, OK, but I doubt that it would have been OK with you if Obama had owed hundreds of millions to unknown creditors.

          1. obama owed a thing or two to a guy named tony rezko. this was no secret. perhaps in the end it probably didn’t matter too much. but if you think barry was clean as a whistle you’re just not informed

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko#Ties_to_Barack_Obama

            I dont like to talk about BHO, i heard too much about him for enough of my life. but here you bring him up again. understand, you may not know as much about obama as you think you do

            1. I didn’t say that Obama “was clean as a whistle.” If Obama had owed hundreds of millions of dollars to unknown creditors, I’d be saying the same thing: it raises national security concerns.

                  1. people have gone to jail for a lot less mischief than that in Chicago. see the wiki entry for the details

                    of course those people did not have the federal prosecutors in their corner

                    1. If you’re talking about Rezko, and I don’t see the connection to Trump owing hundreds of millions of $ to unknown creditors.

              1. CTHD, you bring up an interesting issue. I still believe someone who has run a large global business, people like Bezos, Gates, Cathy or Marriott who have created businesses ( not them personally maybe, but ones like them) are much more qualified than lifer politicians like Biden that doesnt have a rats brain cell on running anything. Trump is not that person, although I support much of his agenda even though I cant stand the man.

                BUT, every president and CEO of a large company is going to be in debt to thousands of people, mostly through their companies. So given the security risk you point out, this country is screwed because we will always have inferior leadership.

                Listening to Biden and Trump, who can say they would trust a multi-million dollar business they created and owned to one of them being their CEO. And if you would not trust them to run your company, how the hell can we trust them to run the country. Trump lies more than he tells the truth and Biden has so many mental lapses they have to prompt him during interviews on CNN and MSNBC to finish a thought.

                1. Ron,

                  If you have evidence that most company presidents and CEOs personally owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to thousands of people, please present it. I’m open to being convinced, but I’m not going to take your word for it. AFAIK, most CEOs don’t own their companies and don’t have many creditors other than U.S. banks.

                  More to the point: it’s a security concern because we don’t know who the creditors are. That’s an easy thing for Trump to resolve by making that info public. He’s refusing to do that. Romney’s wealthy, but he was willing to make his tax returns public.

                  I already said that if it were up to me, I wouldn’t want either of them. But I think Trump is truly dangerous, and I do not think that of Biden.

                  1. “If you have evidence that most company presidents and CEOs personally owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to thousands of people, please present it. ”

                    All companies owe money. Do you think Amazon does not owe billions?

                    Trumps companies owed millions. That does not make him a security risk in my thinking.

                    Biden scares me more because his agenda can lastnfor decades, much like FDR’s

                    1. Ron, that a company owes money does not mean that the CEO personally owes money.

                      You ask “Do you think Amazon does not owe billions?,” but that’s a company. I do not think Jeff Bezos personally owes billions. Am I wrong about that?

                      According to the NYT, Trump personally guaranteed these loans. If you haven’t even read the article, then you should read the article so that you know what it says.

                    2. Historically most of the times Trump doesn’t personally guarantee these things and when he does he actually is using another entity as a back up. At other times it is a guarantee for a fixed amount of money he is prepared to lose.I believe he took bigger risks when he was young and got stung. That is why He might purchase a property and get others to invest with him and to raise more money he might get rid of some of his shares or use a portion of his shares for a loan He is generally in a favorable position because unlike you Trump is respected as a businessman so many businessmen want to invest with him. His brand is worth a lot in any deal.

                    3. So he personally guaranteed the loans. Who does he owe? How are the loans written. Duesche Bank lent him $125 million for Doral. Isn’t Doral country club worth something?

                      Sorry, when something other than the media proves domething is a risk, then I will be worried. Right now I will continue to bote for the people I have been going to vote for for months,

                      And neither of them is named Harris or Trump. (Yes, I really believe Harris will be president within 12 months of Biden being sworn in.) Call me stupid buit I have seen dementia in people, how it develops and Biden shows clear early onset dementia.

                    4. Ron,

                      You ask “Who does he owe?,” and as I’ve pointed out multiple times: we don’t know.

                      With anyone else who has a security clearance, their debts would have been investigated prior to the person getting the security clearance. The President is an exception to that. He gets a security clearance because he was elected.

                      As this thread (https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1310342791336284160) indicates, he owes over $1B altogether, and the NYT report indicates that over $400M is coming due soon.

                      You ask “Isn’t Doral country club worth something?” and yes, it’s worth something. But where is the money going to come from to pay the hundreds of millions that are coming due? Is he going to sell Doral and some other properties while he’s President?

                      That he has such huge debts coming due soon and we don’t know who he’s indebted to should concern all of us regardless of who we plan to vote for.

                    5. “The President is an exception to that. He gets a security clearance because he was elected.”

                      Yet, CTDHD this President who was legally elected was investigated even before he won the election and then investigated for another 3 plus years and nothing was found that compromised him.

                      Yet with all the digging we are finding that Joe Biden may have been compromised. It certainly looks like the DNC was compromised with a Russian Spy who most likely was the originator of the Steele Dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.

                      In the meantime these illegalities were being covered up. The question is not whether the Obama Biden administration were aware. The question is whether the Obama Biden administration were culpable.

                      Yet after all this investigation of Trump “Committed to Lies” continues to place guilt on Trump when she knows darn.ed well that such investigations already occurred in an illegal manner and nothing could be found.

                      When it comes to Biden’s issues “Committed to Lies” closes her eyes even as information arrives that piles up guilt That was legal information previously hidden by the Obama Biden team.

                      What can one learn from that about CTDHD? She is the worst form of hypocrite. She distorts the truth and she is a liar.

                    6. Well when we have a candidate that is clearly suffering from early onset dementia, I am more concerned about that than who Trump owes money. When Biden meets with other leaders, who is going to prompt him during discussions with them like CNN and MSNBC does for Biden. And could adversarial leaders prompt Biden into bad decisions.

                      I suspect Biden will do fine during the debate, but his problem goes deeper than a 90 minute debate. And I fully exoect a Biden win in Nov, so Trumps debt becomes a non issue in Jan.. Bidens dementia does not.

                    7. She’s living in your head rent free, Allan. You follow her around like a toddler crying for attention.

                    8. Anonymous@ (intentional), you are proving my point. CTDHD is not part of the nightmare scenario where I get paid. On this blog, just to answer “the big” question whether you think it or not, no I am not paid. I deal in this foolishness at my own desire.

                      I like truth whether I agree with it or not. We all have our biases and that is acceptable. When we generalize too much and distort we run into trouble. That is the problem with this blog. Bill Stone appears to be a remake of earlier aliases too afraid to hold one alias less he be shown a hypocrite. Is that what you wish to be thought of?

                      Take note, there are no ad hominems here and no insults, just sincere discussion, but when you reply I don’t know which anonymous you are so any errors are fundamentally due to your choice not mine.

                    9. Ron, I find it odd that you insist Biden has dementia but also say “I suspect Biden will do fine during the debate.” A person with dementia would not do fine in a 90 min. debate. There is no drug that can make someone with dementia temporarily lucid; if there were, the families of dementia patients around the country would be clamoring for it.

                      As for “I fully exoect a Biden win in Nov, so Trumps debt becomes a non issue in Jan.,” no, if he’s a national security risk because of his debts, that doesn’t change. It’s not as though he automatically forgets all of the national security info he’s had access to for his 4 years in office.

                    10. 1. Biden will do fine because the G.O.P. has made such an issue with his mental ability that Trump enters this debate like a football team favored by 40 points and they only win by 25. That is a loss in the minds of the fans. If Biden stumbles a couple times, the main stream media will overlook that and run his few positive moments over and over and say he won. Trump cant win this debate unless Biden has a complete seizure. AND, Fox Business this morning was making a big deal about Biden wanting 2 breaks in the 90 minute debate, saying it was his stamina.

                      Its not stamina, he is a 77 year old man! Few 77 year old men can go 90 minutes without peeing twice! If they dont break, his Depends will be soaked!

                      2) As for Trump, he stays president, you say he is a security risk. You say he is defeated, he is still a security risk. So right now that means he needs to be executed or sentenced to life at the high security federal prison in Colorado where he has no contact with anyone. Otherwise that info gets out.

                    11. i’ll tell you a thing or two about dementia

                      first of all, most people who get vascular dementia slide downhill slowly

                      second of all most them do better in the morning. hence the term “sundowning’

                      the difference between morning and night can be very dramatic if you ahve seen it in person

                      also there are drugs for dementia and the best known is ARICEPT and it is indeed widely perscribed and effective at slowing the progress of disease

                      finally there are some things that help anyone’s memory and attention and elderly are not excluded

                      1. COFFEE
                      2. SUGAR
                      3. ADDERAL & RELATED ADHD CLASS OF DRUGS, ie ritalin, vyvanse, meth analogs. even ephedrine an otc pill helps
                      4. CORTISONE can also help some people although that would be an off label use as i understand it
                      5. Modafinil, Donepizil, others

                      Regardless of this, I hope Joe is smart enough when the time comes that we voters can witness a substantive debate. they rarely are however., under better circumstances, and I am tempted to expect this one may be a farce for more than just Joe’s cognitive limitations. I am a Trump voter but I am not all that much of a fan of his “debate style” such as it is

                    12. Mr. K yes I know about dementia. I watched my mother-in-law go from a vibrant individual to nothing. But this was before many of the new drugs.

                      I have not viewed all of the “instances” that have been reported about Biden, but the ones I have seen on some social media feed just supports some of those commenting about mental decline. Its not like he keeps asking questions like someone forgetful , his is talking about one subject and going totally off subject into things totally unrelated. Then the CNN and MSNBC interviewers prompt him and he gets back on subject.

                      Its like ” what the heck is he talking about”, not like Ronald Reagan’s incident in 1984 at his ranch, when a reporter called out a question about arms control and received this response from the leader of the free world:

                      R.R: “Well, we uh, well… I guess, uh, well, we uh …”
                      Nancy Reagan: (sotto voce): “We’re doing the best we can.”
                      R.R.: (with a big smile): “We’re doing the best we can!”

                      Had social media been around in 84, RR would never have been reelected, most likely not the nominee.

                    13. Ron, I said that not knowing the identities of his creditors raises national security **concerns** and that IF he’s a national security risk, then that doesn’t end when he leaves office. But I haven’t said that he IS a national security risk, as I don’t have enough info for that. We need to know who his creditors are.

                      Even if a President’s national security clearance is guaranteed, I think presidents should still have to go through the clearance process, so the government is aware of relevant risks.

                    14. I have no idea who knows what about Trump finances and the NYTimes is one of the last I would believe, along with CNN and anything “NBC”.

                      I do believe that the way this administration has been covered and treated should have convinced any business leader to never ever think of running for president. Mark Cuban, who has looked at this has to be nuts if he even tries.

                      We are stuck with inferior leadership from lifer politicians.

            2. CTHD, the connection to Trump is that you brought up BHO. If you bring up BHO, we may comment upon his shady dealings fairly, do you not agree?

              or are you allowed to bring up Barry and we may not reply?

              we have heard incessantly about Russians behind every bush where Trump is concerned, most of which is a big pile of nothing, and yet this aspect of Obama’s financing and debts was glossed over by those who had the authority to investigate and bring proper charges for corruption.

              Of course corruption charges in Chicagoland are ever lodged against the second tier of corrupt operators and never the top tier.

              Mostly they are attacks on has beens., A current corruption farce is happening now in Chicago concerning an honorable alderman whose only fault is that he is not in Soros’ stable of kept women there. I will not mention his name, it is too parochial for this comments area to be of any usefulness to explain

              1. Gee Kurtz, that’s really some creative – some might say desperate – what-aboutism.

                Didn’t the Trump Steaks and Trump University give it away for you?

                Why not?

              2. Kurtz, you can say whatever you want.

                But if you’re responding to my comment that “If Obama had owed hundreds of millions of dollars to unknown creditors, I’d be saying the same thing: it raises national security concerns,” then whatever you say about Obama should somehow be related to that scenario that I emphasized in bold.

                1. OK CTHD I’ll be sure and tailor my replies to suit your sense of context.
                  That is when I am your student I will. I sense that will not happen so dont get your hopes up

                  for now I am merely gratified that you have made some more interesting remarks of late to which I can reply at all, instead of reposting boring walls of text from other sources. thank you for “loosening up” it makes a more fun exercise here

                    1. Anonymous though I don’t think oyou are the same but a different one than the one I just sent a long answer to. This is a stupid comment. No imagination. No class. It copies what has been said by another. It’s a sign of Stupidity.

          1. The only thing he’s managed to FUBAR is the Democratic party and the MSM. And all he needed to do to make that happen is put the interests of the United States and it’s citizens first. It comes as no surprise you almost don’t recognize it, pal.

      1. Bill, what is the source for the $1M and 4.2M payment. I need it to refute my liberal Trump hater friends running wild with the times article

        Thanks.

        1. Ron, that was an exchange between Mespo and me. The figures come from the NYT article itself. The reporters didn’t name their sources.

          1. OK, I refuse to pay for their pay wall to read a handful of articles a month, so will just not use that info.

            But clarify, what wad the $1M and $4M for?

            1. I gave a link to an Internet Archive copy when I first posted it yesterday; here it is again, no paywall:
              https://web.archive.org/web/20200927225133/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html
              If you’re not familiar with the IA, it’s a useful resource.

              Here again is the relevant excerpt:

              “Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.
              “To cancel out the tax bills, Mr. Trump made use of $9.7 million in business investment credits, at least some of which related to his renovation of the Old Post Office hotel, which qualified for a historic-preservation tax break. Although he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all, his accountants appear to have carved out an allowance for a small tax liability for both 2016 and 2017. When they got to line 56, the one for income taxes due, the amount was the same each year: $750.”

              1. I see nothing wrong with that. Anyone who owns a business and does not use a tax accountant to avoid 100% of the taxes they can avoid legally is mentally challenged.

                1. For goodness sake, read the rest of the article.

                  You asked about that tiny part, and I provided that info for you, but as I’ve now pointed out multiple times in the comments here, that is NOT the primary concern.

                  Here, again, is a good summary, from Matt Tait of 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”

                  If you want a more detailed analysis, here’s a decent one from a tax law professor:
                  https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quick-takeaways-from-the-new-york-times-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

                  1. Commit– Nothing suggests you are a paid troll so much as your regularly and mnontonously beating the anti-Trump drum on the same beat as the DNC and left wing media. Even Whoopie had to sing the tune today. You are wired in. If NBC and NYT said Trump forgot to tie his shoes you would have a column on it within hours.

                  2. So I have said four clear things in anything I have posted here for a couple weeks.
                    !) I support most all Trump agenda items.
                    2) The progressive socialist agenda scares the crap put of me for my kids and grandkids because they last 70-80 years before something may change.
                    3) I will not vote for either of them.
                    4. When I see clear proof from investigations not led by the media or politicians, and they show illegal activity, then I will believe it. Just like the left that did not believe Hillary did anything wrong or Biden has done nothing wrong with Hunter Biden being on the Ukrainian corporations payroll.

                    I have lived through too many political slime jobs to take much seriously anymore. Heck, Clinton was going to be prosecuted based on everything Fox News reported from the GOP and Tre Goudy. How’ed that turn out? Hillary and Bill were going to be indicted for Whitewater and some other stuff. They were even indicated in a Vince fosters death.

                    If Biden wins, that will be good for the country because he will come out on SOTU day like the groundhog on GH day and the rest of the year he will be hidden from viewers so nothing controversial will come out of his mouth.

              2. It’s hard to deal with people that do little but throw slime.

                Trumps taxes are interesting because the Obama administration increased the number of years to go back from 2-7. Another interesting fact is Trump doesn’t owe taxes rather the IRS owes him a $72 million refund. There may be a difference of opinion regarding the refund but that is something that is dealt with by the participants, Trump and the IRS.

                Additionally Trump got some credits for donating green easements. That means he donated his property which has value. For that he gets additional credits.

                I know this is all confusing and that is why I will present a tape to explain this in a better fashion.

                https://www.dickmorris.com/the-truth-about-trumps-taxes-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

    1. For a long while Catholics were a threat to England. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic. Then Puitans were a threat. It was they who beheaded Charles I. The Church of England also posed grave problems. At that time religion and politics were almost inseparable. Fortunately we have mostly succeeded in separating religion and politics and it is dangerous for Democrats to stir it up again. Whether Muslim immigrants will be able to accept the accord remains to be seen. Conditions in Europe and Minnesota are not promising.

      1. It’s actually an effort to establish large categories of people as unfit for public office or teaching positions, just as Dorsey et al declare them unfit for participation in public discussion. Remember all that bellyaching from Ellen Schrecker and Andrew Kopkind about the poor unfortunates hounded out of their jobs by the dastardly red hunters? Well, it was all humbug.

  5. CTHD has been successful in a tactic I recognize from previous posts. She has many of you arguing over Trump’s taxes and debts.

    Wrong subject.

    The real danger to the country comes from what appears to be Biden’s rapidly advancing senility and Kamala’s greasy opportunism.

    Democrat threats to increase the level of violence should also be given some attention. Burning cities down concerns me more than guessing Trump’s tax burden. CTHD wants you to think otherwise.

  6. Number One Cult in the USA is anti constitution socialists pretending to be Democrats. The charges against them? Read the Oath of Office they violate every one of them except for the Squat who refused to take the Oath of office and were seated anyway by oath breaker Pelosi.

  7. Helpful short thread on NY tax fraud & NY tax whistleblower statutes:
    “No statute of limitations for NY civil tax fraud assessment if Tax Dep’t can prove intentional fraud. Tax Dep’t could recover taxes, interest, penalties,+ special 200% tax penalties. (NY DTF has a *handy* calculator on their website to figure out interest and basic penalties) /1
    “NYAG or NY local gov’t has 10 years to file suit that charges wealthy people with *recklessly* filing false tax returns or using false records to further a tax fraud under NY False Claims Act. Actual intent need not be proved. /2
    “…”
    https://twitter.com/gkrakower/status/1310606111989473280

    Wilfred Chan (The Nation): “I went to Donald J Trump State Park an hour north of NYC. Nobody knows it’s there because it isn’t a real park. It’s barren land Trump bought for $2.75 M hoping to build a golf course. When it failed, he donated it to NY State—claiming it was worth $100 M—for a huge tax writeoff.
    “It’s unclear the exact amount Trump claimed on his tax return, though Trump’s 2016 campaign said the land was worth $26.1 million. It’s a joke. There is literally nothing on the property. This is the “parking lot.” The rest is just overgrown bushes and a single empty field.
    “It’s tricky to find Donald J. Trump State Park because there are few signs pointing to it—almost as if the state doesn’t want to admit it exists. This also makes it strangely peaceful. A good place to go for a walk and think about how the US President committed massive tax fraud.”
    https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/1310584576058822657

    1. I note the reduction in Needs to be Committed’s own commentary which she has replaced with quotes. I guess she is having trouble proof reading her own replies and recognizes that they are full of lies or distortions so now she uses a third party to do the same.

            1. You are not smart enough to render such an opinion. You are dumb enough to think stupidity is the same as intelligence.

                    1. He can’t walk away.
                      But I will.

                      Sorry to have inflicted that on you and others. I simply get sick of him debasing people
                      every
                      single
                      day.

                    2. “He can’t walk away. But I will.,,, Sorry to have inflicted”

                      Anonymous. you are not sorry at all. You joined a pack of rats and made comments that didn’t demonstrate you at your best. I went on with my life and even posted replies to those that wished to discuss principles and the like rather than interfering with discussions which is what you do best.

                      Walk away is a good solution. Don’t come back is better. Supply honest content is best.

                    3. I get sick of it as well, Anonymous. No worries, nothing inflicted on me but a good couple of chuckles at the true absurdity of Allan’s commentary and you playing it back to him. Quite refreshing actually.

    2. And the lies keep on coming from NYT and their apparatchiks like Committed to Hate:

      “Trump PAID, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Note also that most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded. The $750 figure is an ADDITIONAL $750. Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.“

      It is not simply a lie, it proves that the person making the statement either did not read the story itself (BY THE INSANITY OF CTHULHU READ THE SOURCES) or lack the mental ability to comprehend that the NYT itself claims that Trump paid $1,000,000 in 2016 and $4,200,00 in 2017.

      The claim that Trump paid only $750 in Federal taxes in 2016 and 2017 is thus a complete and total lie which is easily disproven by the Times own story. I mind when people lie. I mind more when people lie to me about something I can disprove in minutes.”

      So Trump overpaid in previous years reducing his current liability; the NY Slime lied yet again; and Committed dutifully repeated the lie. Situation Normal All F’ed Up!

    1. And, how is it you think any campaign knows the race of any single voter, eh? Since that information is NEVER required on voter registration forms? How is it you think a campaign would stop anyone from voting?

      1. Why would you assume that their database comes solely from voter registration forms??
        Do you think it’s hard to look up information about individual Americans, including their race?

        As for “How is it you think a campaign would stop anyone from voting?,” I suggest that you start by reading about how the Russian troll farms worked in depressing Black voter turnout in 2016. Do you need me to suggest some reading?

    2. “Now we can reveal” while showing meaningless papers to CTDHD is evidence. It’s BS but this is a good example of why we should recognize what is said about her “Committed to Lies”.

  8. Amy Coney Barrett will make a fine SCOTUS member.

    I see some scurrilous dogs in the mass media were “vetching” & harassing her for her Catholic faith over the weekend.

    Taking Diane Feinstein’s lead from her confirmation hearing as appellate judge

    Di Fi and others of her ilk are despicable fakes who want tolerance for their religious inclinations but none for their adversaries. The “Chutzpah” of this!

    1. Kurtz, the problem isn’t that Barrett is a Catholic – so are Joe and Pelosi – but that she belongs to a fundamentalist sect. The same questions would come up for an orthodox Jew or fundamentalist Muslim -with strict religious guidelines how free of religious dogma can she be in a country which does not recognize even the existence of god in it’s constitution?

      Crocodile tears from the likes of JT over this serious question are for the dummies he’s trying to catch for Trump..

        1. They are called fundamentalist only because their particular practices displayed in their occasions of group prayer show certain enthusiastic displays of emotion.

          This is not my cup of tea, but how can we reject the idea of people being moved by the idea and experience of Divine presence?

          I won’t reject it, though my positive religious experiences were not those of elation, but rather tranquility.

          If you want to make an argument against any such people as a rule, then I fear you go beyond secularism into anti-religious bigotry. I am not calling people bigots specifically, just looking at the overall trends of thought on such things.

        2. mistress, I appreciate your thoughts but I hope you can accept that questions about her religion are not anti-Catholic, but legitimate inquiries into what role her beliefs play in her judicial duties. Others have described the group as having very traditionalist beliefs about society and religion, viewpoints in sync with what we commonly call fundamentalism.

          For my part, this is an illegitimate appointment to an already illegitimate court.The theft of the Garland seat from the popularly elected 2 term president Obama – and therefore a theft from the majority of American voters makes the court already illegitimate.With her almost guaranteed seating in a seat that the GOP said repeatedly in 2016 – when many more months were available – should be decided by American voters, and which Pres Lincoln in similar circumstances decided should remain open until after the 1864 election – we will then have 5 of the SC justices having been placed there by Presidents not elected by the people, but by the EC.

          Regardless of her abilities and religious views, the seat should be filled until the next session of Congress.

      1. I am not a member of nor do I much like the “People of Praise.” I was raised a prot and had a long atheist phase then became Catholic. then, after many years of that, perhaps because I am a bad person, I have lapsed. I am not an apostate, just a habitual sinner and in no mood to conform for now.

        I do not personally know Amy Coney Barrett. However along the way I had some social contacts with the POP at various Catholic institutions of higher learning. I have seen some of their particular enthusiastic displays at occasional Catholic events. Nothing in their clique interested me personally. I found it quirky and had to stifle my laughter.

        But, they are good people by and large and no threat to social order in the slightest bit. There is a lot of shade being thrown on them which is unjustified. They are not “submissive women” whatsoever, but, they are popular with some women, women of good character, in each occasion known to me.

        it is not a “fundamentalist sect.” You folks make too much of this. They are a group of people, mostly Catholics per capita, but mixed Catholic and Protestant, who are engaged in emotional expressions of faith. This is the meaning of the word “charismatic.” This is not an aspect of religion I find troubling, though it is not to my taste. . One can see in many faiths, practices which bring forth emotional elation at the union with the Divine. Here is a lead to one such form in the Jewish tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

        They are also a lay movement. The Catholic priests seem a little wary of them. This is inside baseball, but, since I am a big fan of patriarchy, and hierarchy, and order, and all that, I am a little wary of them too. They like to have little prayer groups which seem rather emotional to me. I seek quiet and tranquility in prayer & religious worship and not emotional elation. But who can really fault them? We all seek our joy in different places.

        —————–so much for my personal impressions. on to political theory

        I will concede that the US is fundamentally secular based on the Constitution. I am a pledged defender of that order at least as it existed as of the passage of the bill of rights.

        However, I find it excessively so. I also have problems with French laicite. I openly question whether disestablishmentarianism went too far in the West.

        People may not realize that prior to Civil war, the first amendment was not considered to be “incorporated” against the States, only the federal entity. I think that was a better system and the states should be afforded more latitude to reflect the religious idioms of their citizens.

        If we could call that a right wing position. for sake of argument at least, then Amy Coney Barrett is probably to the left of me on that.

        it is fine for Democrat Senators to vote no on her if they like and they don’t need a reason. If the reason is to protect secularism, then why not just come out with it? I think you have book and I credit you for it. Others are not so sincere.

  9. Peter Strzok (former FBI agent): “This is a roadmap of some of the ways Trump is compromised. In the hands of a hostile intel service, these millions of dollars represent coercive leverage over @realDonaldTrump as a result of undisclosed foreign financial deals while he was President.”

    Joshua Geltzer (Georgetown): “As we think through the implications of Trump’s tax returns, remember: Trump got the US Department of Justice to tell the Supreme Court that his financial records wouldn’t be of much interest to a congressional committee investigating Trump’s susceptibility to foreign influence.”

    Michael Harriot (The Root):
    “Here’s what Biden should say:
    “If you make less than $200,000 per year, YOU paid Trump’s taxes
    “If you’re wondering where your second stimulus check went, Ivanka used it to buy a purse
    “If you wanna know where your paycheck goes…Eric and Don Jr went lion hunting with it”

    Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI): “The man who won’t give Americans $600/week in unemployment aid got a $72.9 million tax refund from the IRS & paid $0.00 in federal income taxes for 10 out of 15 years.”

    Garrett M. Graff (journalist):
    “The entire Trump administration is a lesson in what happens when we don’t prosecute white collar crime. Manafort, Cohen, Ivanka, Don Jr., Eric, and Donald himself all should have been sidelined years ago by prosecutors—and now each has faced white collar sanctions since 2018.”

    Ken Tremendous (pension fund monitor): “A smart con-man would pay, like, $11,228 in taxes. That seems like a lot! But Trump — and this is key — is very dumb. He never thinks anyone will find out what he is doing. He didn’t want to pay anything, so he paid $750. It’s so sad and funny. $750 is such a funny amount.”

    Trump calls the NYT story fake. If he simply released his tax returns — like he promised — he could prove it. Absolutely nothing prevents him from releasing his tax returns himself.

    1. “Trump’s Taxes Show He’s a National Security Threat
      “… Step away from the tragicomic tawdriness and grift that the tax returns define, however, and focus on what they reveal about Trump as the most powerful man in the world and occupant of the Oval Office. Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat – a threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal supporters. …”
      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-taxes-show-hes-national-093724888.html

      And here’s a thread that indicates that Trump’s total debt is actually over $1billion:
      https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1310342791336284160

      1. CTHD, the Alexander accounting is devastating. The guy is broke, up to his butt in debt, and keeping it going with BS. Many here argued that we didn’t need to see his taxes -of course they did, but want Hunter Biden investigated! . This is exactly why we need to see them from candidates. Does anyone own these guys? How desperate might they be for bail outs?

          1. As there are surely counter intelligence investigations yet again on Trump. It would virtually be impossible for there not to be with trump’s penchant for extorting foreign governments for illegal help in his re election.

      2. they show nothing of the sort. they pile on one supposition after another.

        we just have to take the NYT’s word for it, however poor the NYT’s credit

              1. That sounds plausible. Though we know from her earlier comments that she thinks we would be nuts to think she necessarily believes the sources she is citing.

                But, I wonder, why cite an ‘authority’ you are not sure is credible?

                    1. One with think that with all the comments being made about CTDHD that she may have taken on an additional alias and is now posting as anonymous.

                    2. Now you’re fantasizing that I’m her because you’re so consumed with getting her to respond to you?

                      You’re even more of a wanker than I thought.

                    3. Anonymous or CTDHD there is no way for one to know, is there? You have created the doubt and now are calling other people wankers when that word describes you (pleural or singular) best.

                    4. If you think I’m her, it only shows how hard it is for you to tell people apart.

                      Do you have fluid in your pleural cavity?

                      A pleural effusion can lead to low oxygen saturation, which would explain why your brain isn’t functioning properly.

        1. Kurtz, read the NYTs article – they have the proof and you know it. I understand you can’t face the music after 4 years of being conned, but the mealy mouth disseminating denials by Trump’s spokesmen tell you all you need to know.

          As noted by CTHD above https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1310342791336284160 has the goods by property and terms on the $1.1 billion he owes, with much of it coming due. His equity is low to non-existent on most of his property.

          1. Why not act intelligent? State the crime and then the proof.

            You seem not to understand the tax laws. Why don’t you open a book?

          2. service of the debt is not a problem when interest rates are close to zero “Anonymous” and i suspect you know that too

          3. Trump and his businesses collect and pay millions of dollars in payroll taxes for employees.

            Payroll taxes meaning Social security, medicare, and medicaid, to say nothing of state and federal income taxes.

            They have obviously zeroed in on one calculation to the exclusion of the overall context which would weaken their editorial purpose in this fake news exercise

            This is what you call a sin of omission because there is a context that is wholly lost in what has emerged from this NYT incompetence

            Hence it is interesting, but, flawed, from step one.

    2. Brad Miller: “The NYT says the returns show debts but do not identify the lenders. Also, there was significant debt forgiveness, apparently without explanation. The identity of lenders seems relevant. … By whom was the debt forgiven and why?”

      Kristen Richardson: “Right. What might Trump’s unknown creditors get in return for forgiving the debts of the President of the United States?
      “-sanctions relief?
      “-can dismember a US journalist?
      “-can abandon Kurdish allies in Syria?
      “-can place bounties on the heads of US soldiers?
      “-future $$ deals?”

      1. And in a Trump specialty along the lines of creating the crisis for himself to solve;

        -side grain deals with the Chinese to counter the awful effects of his tariff taxes.
        -counter troop withdrawal plans to his publicly declared ones (a trump specialty).., this is an area where trump does his most manipulative work.
        -kickback deals for contracting ‘building the wall/fence’ and private prison contractors for children on the border.

        In trump world the possibilities are endless. It’s about corruption rather than ‘draining the swamp’.

            1. ha you call me gullible. were you one of the people protesting Trump moving american troops out of the way of the Turkish artillery that was and did fire into Northern Syria? I recall that was the usual chorus of Democrat war haws and Republican steppinfetchits too

              1. Notice, I’ve just made observations on trump tendencies. Notice that you’ve responded in a way that highlights an inability to hear objective observations about trump. Understandable. Trump demands that type of loyalty while not upholding his end of the arrangement. We’re basically just talking math here.

                1. what is the factual basis for your claim that trump advocates troop withdrawals and then cancels it. or whatever the claims was above.

                  feel free to identify facts and sources. i am unaware of any such facts

                  1. Talking Syria, Kurtz. Tried to post a couple links, but WordPress, or the blog itself. won’t let me link anything for awhile now.

                  2. And to be fair to what i claimed, I did not say cancel. The thing he does is make an announcement, then in the ensuing days he reverses himself, sometimes multiple times.

                    Read up on Syria, Kurtz. Or on basically any trump deal with anyone, ever.

        1. I’m not President, Kurtz, nor a candidate for office, and I’m not a national security threat. I’m not the one who refused to condemn the Saudis for Khashoggi’s murder, who refused to confront Putin about bounties on our troops, who tried to bribe Ukraine into harming my political opponent and substantiating Russian propaganda about the DNC server, …

          I have no foreign creditors, and I’ll gladly make my tax returns, my credit report, my transcripts, etc. public in return for Trump doing the same.

          1. “I’m not President, Kurtz, nor a candidate for office, and I’m not a national security threat. I’m not the one who refused to condemn the Saudis for Khashoggi’s murder,”

            Thank goodness you aren’t for then there wouldn’t be a mideast peace agreement and no agreement between Bosnia and Croatia would have been made. Instead you would be supporting people like Khashoggi that caused fires to light in the mideast. You sound like a war monger CTDHD.

            1. CTHD isn’t a war monger any more than you are, Allan, but you’re so consumed with her that you reply to her all the time, lying about her. It’s not a good look.

              1. “CTHD isn’t a war monger any more than you are, Allan”

                “Committed to Lies” doesn’t seem to demonstrate that fact when she writes or quotes things. If she isn’t a war monger then she should further cull what she quotes. What proof do you have she isn’t a war monger? Now you can run away.

                  1. Read what she writes.

                    She will invariably write something or quote something again that will demonstrate that propensity.Maybe along with giving up on her own opinions she will stay away from quoting that as well.

                    1. She has provided plenty in the past and will provide more in the future. It’s difficult for you because it seems your memory has been compromised as well as your intellect.

          2. the bounties. you guys are convinced of that huh. So the Afghan Kabul regime captured and tortured an afghan Talib who said whatever his captors wanted him to say, and a cia guy took notes and made whatever conclusions he liked which were intended to please his superiors. then via the game of telephone, whatever third hand hearsay was circulated to the CIA spook and then on to the CIA analysts was amplified by the complaisant pro war press into this lame and patently ridiculous story.

            this was the weakest and lamest story to emerge from Afghanistan for a long time. I will leave it to you to either rectify yourself or remain confused about that fake news.

            https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/07/07/top-us-general-in-the-middle-east-skeptical-that-russian-bounties-led-to-troops-deaths/

            now why is it preposterous? I will say why

            1. Taliban does not need to have bounties offered to try and kill Americans. They already do that for free.

            2. A fool does not buy what is already free.

            3. Russia is likely backing Taliban with arms sales, and perhaps paying them for intelligence. Those are separate deals and will continue regardless. Just as we sold the Talibans arms and paid them for intelligence back when Osama Bin Laden was fightting the Russians there.

            Hence, the story was fatuous nonsense from the beginning. Keeping these abcs in mind, read the link I gave and it should be clearer to you why this one was such a joke.

          3. “I’m not a national security threat”

            Sure you are.

            You and your chosen political Party have encouraged and condoned rioting in major cities all over the US, while literally kneeling down to a political organization run by Marxists whose stated goal is to overthrow the government.

            That is a very serious internal threat to national security.

            1. If you think I’m a national security threat, Rhodes, I suggest that you contact the FBI about your concern.

      2. Let’s also hear from the NYT

        HOW MUCH DID TRUMP PAY IN PAYROLL TAXES?

        FOR HIMSELF AND FOR HIS EMPLOYEES?

        HOW MUCH DID THEY PAY IN SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tax_withholding_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Withholding%20on%20wages,-In%20the%20US&text=Taxes%20withheld%20include%20federal%20income,allowances%20(often%20called%20exemptions).

        those numbers are counted in millions not hundreds

        you people are too clever by half. Trump has active business and real estate operations, with considerable numbers of employees, and this headline is a joke to anyone who understands taxation of business and real estate.

        it’s like amazon. maybe they pay little or not federal taxes. quite a surprise but they have been losing money for decades as they expand operations

        but you can be sure amazon is paying a ton in payroll withholdings real estate taxes use taxes, etc etc etc, and now they finally collect sales tax too.

        https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/21/20826405/amazons-profits-revenue-free-cash-flow-explained-charts

        so they might not be paying federal income tax but you can bet they are paying gobs of money in taxes overall

        hence we understand the NYT is up to fake news again– perhaps taking one fact in isolation from meaningful context

        and they have the gall to call trump a liar

        1. Kurtz. what’s your point? I withhold taxes, FICA, and Medicare taxes from employees, and then meet their FICA and medicare contributions as required by law. That’s a cost doing business that all employers fold into their retail pricing. It has nothing to do with their personal taxes, income or otherwsie.

          WTF are you talking about?

          By the way, it’s been the GOP resisting requiring sales tax on internet purchases and it has helped cause plenty of local businesses to shut down. I know some. Bezos isn’t a Libertarian for nothing. So what’s your point on that? Somehow what about Amazon is a defense of the broke con man you cal Dear Leader?

      3. So far the big claims we hear about Trump and the foreign banks involve Russia and Germany. Trump hasn’t been especially giving to those countries, yet some people that totally lack credibility post selective statements that lack credibility themselves.

        It shows that CTDHD is not who her name suggests rather she is “Committed to Lies”.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, your comment doesn’t suggest that what you say is true. On the other hand I showed why one would think you are a coward with a yellow stripe going down your back.

      4. Commit, your desperation is palpable.

        And now you’re staring down the barrel of the first debate tomorrow night.

        It doesn’t matter how much Aducanumab and Andrenochrome they pump into Biden today, he’s still going to get horse whipped, and then he’s got to get through two more debates.

    3. i am guessing a lot of the geniuses who will be commenting on this fake news have little or no experience at all in real estate taxation

      the information, if it is to be believed, is not a big surprise.

      1. Dude, it’s not his real estate taxes at issue. It’s his brokeness and staggering debt, and conning of everyone from you to the IRS.

        1. Apparently neither you nor those in the employ of The New York Times know the difference between a tax return and a balance sheet.

          1. Exactly. He’s so broke and with such staggering debt that he donates his salary to charity. Not that his army of tax lawyers haven’t done the projections and advised him accordingly.

        2. Are you not smart? You are pis.sing into the wind again. You know very little about his finances and say a lot. That makes you terribly ignorant.

        3. do you think that you, “anonymous,” working from second hand assessments based on a claim of access to a return that is surely hundreds of pages long, can form a more correct opinion of Trump’s taxes due than the IRS? perhaps you have a crystal ball

        4. some people apparently didn’t understand what i was saying at all. this is not surprising

          many people who have never prepared an entity return nor signed one, can’t imagine that organizations often keep paying salary and wages years during many years of losses

          a business can be losing money year on year for decades and if it has sufficient credit and capitalization, it can keep on running and growing. i already provided amazon as key example

          of course none of the Trump detractors had anything to say about that. because, ignorance!

          if you understand taxation and basic math, this one is not too hard to dismiss. but, we understand the avid readers of the NYT often are good at neither management nor math

      2. Kurtz, there is nothing in this news about real estate taxes. Maybe you should read it before sounding of on irrelevant issues.

        On top of his being underwater to the tune of about $1.1 billion on his properties and having about 1/2 that coming due personally on him in the next 4 years, might have he got away with real estate tax scams too? I DK, haven’t heard that.

        1. ha ha ok. nothing there is my point. you take a tax return as complicated as they get and boil it down to one lame talking point. serious lie by omission.

    4. That’s true, but why do you think it’s anyone’s business but his and the IRS’? I’m sure that if there’s any prosecutable discrepancy in his returns, they’ll take him to court. Just like they do millions of ordinary citizens.

      1. a) They can’t take him to court while he’s in office.
        b) Him having huge debts potentially creates a national security risk, and we deserve to know who he is indebted to. I’ll repeat some of what I posted earlier:

        Matt Tait (a cybersecurity Fellow at UT Austin):
        “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”

        Peter Strzok (former FBI agent): “This is a roadmap of some of the ways Trump is compromised. In the hands of a hostile intel service, these millions of dollars represent coercive leverage over @realDonaldTrump as a result of undisclosed foreign financial deals while he was President.”
        Strzok has his biases, but his point is still legitimate.

        “Trump’s Taxes Show He’s a National Security Threat
        “… Step away from the tragicomic tawdriness and grift that the tax returns define, however, and focus on what they reveal about Trump as the most powerful man in the world and occupant of the Oval Office. Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat – a threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal supporters. …”
        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-taxes-show-hes-national-093724888.html

        1. Needs to be Committed, you don’t seem to realize that lots of rich people and companies have large debts ( we don’t know what Trump’s are). I’ll make a bet that Bloomberg today or before had large debts as well. Debts are a mechanism for capitalization in some of our richest companies.

          A building that I have shares in just took out a two figure $million loan because interest rates are low. Do you think that makes everyone involved subject to bankruptcy?

          Financial ignorance is fine until you open your mouth up.

        2. Joe Biden is already compromised and presents a National Security threat precisely because of the shady dealings of his son Hunter which Joe knew and lied about. So this argument doesn’t work for you since I suspect you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to Slow Joe.

  10. If all Trump did was take advantage of our tax codes, then why don’t we focus on changing our tax laws. That’s because there are a lot of people who know how to game the system and don’t want the rules to change.

    1. Most Americans don’t game the tax system. If it doesn’t change, that’s because the powerful don’t want it to change. The average American would like it to change.

      1. Most Americans don’t game the tax system.

        That’s just a silly statement. Regardless of what word you want to use to describe filing, the IRS and individual States provide the rules taxpayers may use to calculate their tax liability. I have yet to file a return for anyone seeking to pay more than the law required.

        1. What’s silly about it?

          Bob was the one who said there are a lot of people who know how to game the system and don’t want the rules to change.

          1. Come on Chips, at least try to read for comprehension.

            My comment cited your statement for being silly. I even explained that Regardless of what word you want to use to describe filing… I have yet to file a return for anyone seeking to pay more than the law required.

            Your silly statement implied most Americans don’t seek to pay less in taxes than the tax code requires.

            Do you have any data to support that?

              1. If people are paying you to game the system for them, then you’re part of the problem Bob described.

                Yup. People pay me to itemize every penny legally allowable. And guess what, the taxing authorities provide me guidance on how to do it. I work for my clients and represent them before the IRS. It would be highly unethical for me to be paid by the client for the benefit of the IRS.

              2. Anonymous, that is a Stupid thing to say. The IRS rules provide for legal exemptions and the like. Those are the rules accountants are supposed to use. Which failed school system did you come from?

              1. olly has not this preposterous exchange amused you?

                I wish it were funny. I’m sitting here working on tax returns ahead of the October 15th deadline imaging how quickly I would be out of business the nanosecond word got out that I didn’t didn’t work the tax law in favor of my clients.

                invincible ignorance armed with impenetrable arrogance

                It is stunning that they’ve been provably wrong on everything of substance and yet they remain undeterred. SMH. They must truly hate themselves to abuse their own reality day after day.

    1. Anybody want to bet these were mostly black on black shootings?

      you can call Mayor Lightfoot’s office and ask if she is racist maybe. Oh wait, she’s black so she can’t be racist. A black lesbo morever! “not that there’s anythig wrong with that!” as seinfeld said
      and her results prove it. right? 2 plus 2 equals five I guess

      https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-gun-violence-5-dead-at-least-26-wounded-in-shootings-so-far-this-weekend/2345506/

      Chicago police say nine people were killed and at least 42 others wounded in shootings across the city over the weekend.

      The most recent fatal shooting took place at around 12:54 a.m. Sunday in the 1400 block of East 73rd Street, according to police. A 31-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk with two other males when someone inside a black SUV opened fire, officials said. He was shot in the left shoulder and armpit and taken to the University of Chicago Hospital where he was pronounced dead, according to police. Further details were not immediately available and no one was taken into custody.

      At around 11:02 p.m. Sunday, a 21-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk in the 600 block of North Sawyer when someone inside a gray sedan opened fire, according to police. He was shot in the chest and taken in critical condition to Stroger Hospital, where he later died, officials said. No one was in custody and the investigation remains ongoing.

      Local

      THANKSGIVING
      32 MINS AGO
      CDC Releases Guidelines for Thanksgiving, Says Gatherings Should Be ‘Small’

      PEORIA
      1 HOUR AGO
      4 Young Peoria Women Killed in 1-car Crash, School Mourns
      Hours earlier, a 66-year-old man was shot and killed at approximately 6:43 p.m. in the 6100 block of South Bishop, police stated. The victim and a 54-year-old male victim were on the street when they heard gunshots and felt pain. The 66-year-old victim sustained a gunshot wound to the head and was transported to the University of Medical Center where he was pronounced, police said. The 54-year-old victim sustained a gunshot wound to the right leg and was taken to the University of Chicago Medical Center in good condition.

      At around 5 p.m., a 20-year-old man was dropped off at St. Bernard Hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police, who said he was pronounced dead. Further details on the shooting were not immediately available.

      On Saturday night, a 15-year-old boy was shot in the head in the 11600 block of South Prairie at approximately 9:20 p.m. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in critical condition, and was later pronounced dead. Further details weren’t immediately available, and Area Two detectives are investigating.

      Another teen was fatally shot earlier Saturday, as a 17-year-old boy was standing in an alley in the 200 block of North Leamington at approximately 11:10 a.m. when two men walked up to him, pulled out weapons, and began firing. The teen was hit in the upper torso, and was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said. The two gunmen entered a light-colored vehicle, fleeing south on Leamington. Authorities are still investigating, and no suspects are currently in custody.

      In the first fatal shooting reported this weekend, a 19-year-old man was walking through an alley at approximately 10 p.m. Friday with two other men when shots were fired, according to police. The teen was struck in the chest and back, and was rushed to the University of Chicago Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. Area Two detectives are currently investigating the shooting, and no suspects are in custody.

      Just after 4 a.m. Saturday, another fatal shooting was reported, this time in the 7000 block of South Harper. Police say a 42-year-old man was standing in the backyard of a residence when a man approached from the front of the home, firing shots at a group of individuals. The man was hit in the back, and was taken to the University of Chicago. He was later pronounced dead, according to authorities. Area One detectives are investigating the shooting, and no suspects are in custody.

      Less than an hour later, another fatal shooting was reported in the 200 block of North Latrobe. Officers responding to a call of shots fired found a 20-year-old man lying on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds. He was examined by paramedics at the scene, and was pronounced dead. No suspects are in custody.

      The rest of the weekend’s shootings occurred as follows, according to police. Unless otherwise noted, no suspects were taken into custody and the investigation into the incidents remained ongoing.

      Friday –
      Just before 6 p.m. in the 3600 block of West 16th Street, two 36-year-old men were standing on a sidewalk when shots were fired from a vehicle, hitting both men in the legs. Both were taken to Mount Sinai for treatment, authorities said.
      An 18-year-old man was standing in the 6700 block of South Ashland at approximately 10:10 p.m. when he was shot twice in the leg, police said. The man did not see where the shots came from, and he was taken to St. Bernard Hospital in fair condition.
      In the 2900 block of East 79th Place at approximately 10:24 p.m., a 40-year-old man was standing in the rear parking lot of an apartment when a person in a black sedan fired shots at him, striking him in the leg. Police say the man was taken to the University of Chicago in fair condition.
      Saturday –
      An 18-year-old man told police he was standing on a corner in the 3400 block of West Chicago at approximately 12:12 a.m. when he was shot in the hand. The man also suffered graze wounds to his head and shoulder, and was taken to West Suburban Hospital in fair condition, police said.
      In the 300 block of West 47th Street at approximately 1:42 a.m., two individuals were standing when they were shot by an unknown assailant, police said. A 36-year-old man was shot in the head, and is in critical condition at the University of Chicago. A 28-year-old man later arrived at Provident Hospital after suffering a graze wound to his head, and he was released shortly thereafter.
      At approximately 2:44 a.m. in the 7300 block of South Yale, an unidentified man was discovered lying in the hallway of an apartment building after being shot in the abdomen. Police say the man was taken to the University of Chicago, where he is in critical condition.
      Chicago police say four people were shot while standing next to a vehicle in the 2400 block of West Lithuanian Plaza at approximately 3:33 a.m. A person in a dark-colored sedan fired shots, striking each of the victims. One of the victims, a 30-year-old man, was hit in the abdomen and was taken to the University of Chicago in serious condition. The other three victims, a 23-year-old man, a 29-year-old woman and a 30-year-old man, were all transported to area hospitals in good condition.
      In the 3100 block of West Cermak at approximately 9:14 a.m., a 42-year-old man was approached by another man who pulled out a weapon and demanded money and other items. When the man refused, a physical altercation ensued, and the assailant fired one shot, striking the victim in the left hip. The assailant fled the scene on Albany, and the victim was taken to Mount Sinai in good condition.
      At approximately 3:45 p.m. on 95th Street near the 9500 block of South Cottage Grove, a 19-year-old male was traveling in a vehicle eastbound when another vehicle pulled up alongside and an unknown offender produced a gun, firing shots at the victim, according to police. The victim suffered a gunshot wound to the back was taken to Roseland Hospital in critical condition.
      In the 7300 block of South May Street at approximately 6:30 p.m., a 22-year-old man and 36-year-old man were on the sidewalk when an unknown offender across the street fired shots at both victims, police stated. The 22-year-old victim was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in stable condition. The 36-year-old male victim sustained a gunshot wound to the right arm and was transported to the University of Chicago Medical Center in stable condition.
      A 23-year-old man and 22-year-old man were both shot while an alley at approximately 6:44 p.m. in the 5000 block of West Wolfram, police stated. The 23-year-old sustained a gunshot wound to the buttocks and was transported to Advocate Illinois Masonic Hospital in good condition. The 22-year-old victim sustained a gunshot wound to the leg was transported to Community First Hospital in good condition.
      Two people, including a 17-year-old male, were injured in a shooting in the 3200 block of South Morgan at approximately 9:03 p.m., police said. The 17-year-old male victim was walking on the sidewalk when a male offender fired shots. The victim was taken to Stroger Hospital in fair condition. A second victim, a male of an unknown age, was taken to Stroger Hospital in serious condition with a gunshot wound to the shoulder.
      Just before 9 p.m. in the 7800 block of South Western Avenue, a 24-year-old man got into an argument with another man, and during the altercation he was shot twice in the leg. Police say the assailant then stole the man’s phone and fled the scene. The victim was taken to Christ Hospital in critical condition.
      Sunday –
      In the 1300 block of West 64th Street at approximately 2:07 a.m., a 17-year-old boy was standing in an alley when a person in a black sedan fired shots at him. Police say the teen was hit in the right arm and back, and is in critical condition at the University of Chicago.
      A 31-year-old man was walking in the 5300 block of West North Avenue at approximately 2:38 a.m. when he was shot in the left foot. He was taken to West Suburban Hospital in good condition, police said.
      At approximately 2:51 a.m. in the 2100 block of North Karlov, a 31-year-old man was shot in the abdomen, police said. He was taken to Illinois Masonic in serious condition.
      In the 1500 block of North Mayfield at approximately 3:25 a.m., a 43-year-old woman was standing in a group when she was shot in the shoulder. Police say the woman was taken to Illinois Masonic in good condition.
      A 37-year-old man was standing in the first block of North Kilbourn at approximately 4:30 a.m. when he was shot. He was transferred to Stroger Hospital in unknown condition, police said.
      Two juveniles were walking westbound at approximately 3:45 p.m. in the 0-100 block of East 123rd Street when a dark-colored vehicle approached them and both victims heard shots and felt pain, police stated. A 14-year-old male sustained a gunshot wound to the right thigh and was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital in stable condition. A second 14-year-old suffered a gunshot wound to the left arm and was also taken to Comer Children’s Hospital and said to be in stable condition.
      A 32-year-old male was shot at approximately 3:48 p.m. when an unknown offender approached him in a vacant lot and fired shots, police said. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to the lower back and transported himself to Roseland Hospital where he was listed in good condition.
      In the 4900 block of West Van Buren at approximately 3:52 p.m., a 35-year-old male was shot while on a sidewalk, police said. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and was taken to Stroger Hospital in good condition.
      At approximately 3:54 p.m. in the 8000 block of South Drexel, an 18-year-old male victim was found with a gunshot wound to the chest, according to police. The victim was taken to the University of Chicago Medical Center in stable condition.
      In the 7000 block of South Kingston at approximately 5:01 p.m., a 15-year-old male victim was on the sidewalk when an unknown vehicle pulled up and someone inside fired shots at the victim, police said. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to the left leg and was transported to South Shore Hospital in good condition.
      At around 6:30 p.m., a male suspect fired shots after exiting a gray minivan in the 4300 block of South Wentworth, according to police. A 53-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk when he was shot in the shoulder and taken to the University of Chicago hospital in fair condition. A 20-year-old man was shot in the left calf while sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle. He was also taken to the University of Chicago hospital in fair condition.
      Three women were shot at around 7:30 p.m. in the 6700 block of South Wabash, officials said. The victims were sitting on a front porch with a group of males when a male offender opened fire from an alley, according to police. A 24-year-old woman was shot in the left leg, an 18-year-old woman was shot in the torso and left leg and another 18-year-old woman was shot in the right leg. All three were taken to the University of Chicago Hospital and were listed in good condition, authorities said.
      At around 5:40 p.m., authorities said three people were shot while driving in a vehicle in the first block of East 83rd Street. The victims were in the car when someone in another unknown vehicle fired shots, according to police. A 34-year-old man suffered a graze wound to the head, a 25-year-old woman suffered a graze wound to the chest and a 29-year-old man was shot in the left hand, officials said. All three were taken to the University of Chicago Hospital in good condition.
      At around 9:30 p.m., a 26-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk in the 1300 block of North Western Avenue when someone robbed him at gunpoint, according to police. The suspect shot the man in the left hand, officials said. The victim then walked into Norwegian American Hospital where he was listed in good condition.

    1. Haha. Thanks for reinforcing the ridiculous “whataboutism” –really the only twig left to fight with–which the dwindling few gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees (direct hit here), pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who still profess to support the day glo bozo are reduced to. So sorry for your loss. Thanks for playing. That ticking sound is getting louder; isn’t it?

      this it to “i woulda had my own klavern, but the klan doesn’t let women run one” squeeKKK

      this is from Mk Ra

  11. The greatest danger to humankind or government is self centered pride. It goes deeper into the soul than any faith. I think in this writer and in this newspaper one can see where pride can lead.

Leave a Reply