Washington Democrats are adding a fifth stage for confessions under a new law. If passed, examination, confession, absolution, and penance will be followed by arrest. The blatantly unconstitutional legislation would target priests who learn of any “reasonable” basis to believe that a child “has suffered abuse or neglect.” Putting aside the obvious violation of the sanctity of the confessional, it presents a novel problem for priests if they both encourage the faithful to unburden themselves while at the same time reminding them anything that they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.
The bill would amend the state law that currently applies to law enforcement, teachers, medical professionals or child care providers to report cases of child abuse or neglect. Clergy would be added to the list. The sponsors would also exempt clergy from the exception afforded to lawyers and others who obtain information “solely as a result of a privileged communication.”
The law would apply to any “ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, or person performing official duties that are recognized as the duties of a member of the clergy.”
In my view, the law is facially unconstitutional as an attack on the free exercise of religion.
Canon law imposes a “sacramental seal” over the confessional that is treated as “inviolable.” Accordingly, under Canon 983.1, “it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
In 1813 in New York, the clergy-penitent privilege faced an early challenge in People v. Philips. In that case, Fr. Anthony Kohlmann learned in the confessional about two people who had stolen jewelry and convinced them to turn over stolen goods to him. He then returned the goods to the victims. However, after the thieves were later arrested, state prosecutors sought to force Fr. Kohlmann to testify. The court, however, ruled that he was constitutionally exempt.
Putting aside the unconstitutionality, it is a law that is ripe for abuse. The state would be using the church as an agent to compel confessions on the threat of damnation and then turn over the evidence to the police. Worse yet, if the priest does not give a type of ministerial Miranda, the confessant may not realize the danger. However, it is rather hard for a priest to say that a person must confess their sin while reminding them of the right to remain silent.
Years ago, I represented Quenton Brown in the case of Brown v. Butler. The issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was the use of a police psychiatrist to examine Brown, who had a 51 IQ. The doctor then testified against him. We prevailed in establishing that the doctor was an agent of the police and, as such, was required to give Miranda before any examination.
The danger in the Brown case was that the doctor was viewed by the defendants as a medical expert offering therapeutic services. The environment encouraged defendants to disregard their right to remain silent, even after an invocation with police.
This would be Brown on steroids. The priest is there to see to the faith and moral health of an individual. In an effort to avoid damnation, the confessant risks incrimination.
It is a chilling effort to convert priests into sacramental snitches. Even more chilling is that it is clearly part of a broader effort by Democrats with similar laws pushed in states like Montana.
The Supreme Court recognized in cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) that the government may not “unduly infringe” free exercise. This does not mean that religious figures are exempt from “[c]onduct [that] remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” citing Reynolds as authority. However, even with a religiously neutral law, it cannot be applied without a “compelling” public purpose. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). That is a high standard but the Court rejected many exemptions and ultimately handed down Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, holding that the Free Exercise Clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
That decision led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which exempts persons from any law that imposes a substantial burden on sincere religious beliefs or actions unless the government can show that the law is the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.”
In 1993, the Court ruled in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah that a local ordinance against the “unnecessary” killing of animals in a “ritual or ceremony” was unconstitutional.
The Court also later handed down Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. in 2014, allowing a commercial family-owned corporation to refuse to participate in the “contraception mandate.”
In my view, the Washington State law is a frontal attack on free exercise and would be struck down if enacted. The only question is why Democrats consider such legislation to be any more viable politically than it is constitutionally.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
It is not like old guy in the skies woke up one day and introduced confessions.
It was invented for a reason.
https://archive.org/details/historyconfess03leauoft/mode/2up
You forgot to cite Jack Chick and Charles Chiniquy.
Something really bothers me about this potential law. All these reporting requirements for certain individuals, and yet there is no law or rule that requires police to do anything ever. Regardless any non-activity or non-response by the police no matter how egregious the felony, the public has absolutely no recourse against the police.
“. . . there is no law or rule that requires police to do anything ever.”
What should “really bother” you is your inability to get the facts right.
Washington law is very clear: Police have a duty to report child abuse (and if necessary, to remove a child from the abuser). That law applies to countless other professionals.
You are free to make argue in defense of the “sanctity of the confessional.” And to provide sanctuary for child sex abusers.
You are not free to just make stuff up.
What a fairy tale.
I told the police and DCS my ex-wife was abusing our child to torture her into telling DCS that I was molesting her.That crap went on THREE FORKING YEARS and NOBODY – not the cops, not DCS, would listen to me. I spent $80K in legal fees, expert witness testimony and tens of thousands in a decade+ of therapy. I was in Court at three times a year trying to protect my child.
Finally, a third-party whom she tried to enlist in her scheme ratted her out. The State FINALLY decided to investigate, were appalled because everything I said was true, and terminated her parental rights. And I had no legal recourse against them for that systemic BS.
She has suffered the long-term physical (fibromyalgia) and emotional (PTSD) consequences for the past 25 years,
So don’t tell me all about ‘how the police do their forking job.’ Or ‘DCS protects children.’ I say that, btw, as a man who spent nearly six years in law enforcement, both local and Federal, before walking away from the corruption, incompetence, and other issues while being drug through the system.
Just imagine how Al Sharpton would use that Canonical Law.
If he gets ordained by the Catholic Church and becomes a priest, then look out!
The sponsors would also exempt clergy from the exception afforded to lawyers and others who obtain information “solely as a result of a privileged communication.”
It seems to me this is the rub. It is not religiously neutral. Everyone else has this exception, but under the bill clergy are the only people who don’t. That means the question has nothing to do with strict scrutiny, a compelling state interest, or the least restrictive means test. Instead, it is legislation specifically designed to target religion as such and treat clergy worse than all other professions. Scotus made it clear that targeting religion for discriminatory treatment always violates the First Amendment in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993) (unanimous decision).
# Other privileged communications? Lawyers and the President of the US?
If a priest is working as a spy in the US is he exempt because he’s clergy? An Imam is spying in the US, is he exempt? They only exchange info within the church or temple.
They have dual citizenship. Ridiculous…
# what is the meaning of “least restrictive”?
Personal note- laughing.
AS IF the confession isn’t coerced, compelled by the most inhuman force of eternal damnation.
In the words of Lindsey Graham, what’s next? Dunk them in water and see if they float?
Of course there’s always purgatory where the human can be tortured until he’s converted.
IT’S TO AVOID A THEOCRACY FOR CRISSAKE. THEOCRACIES ARE NOT PERMITTED. It’s based on reason. Try reasoning with sociopaths.
Oh yes, you have my devotion and obedience. You make me cry. You pray on my weaknesses and tender mercies. The sociopathic gods.
Most people are just embarrassed. Isn’t that Adam and Eve? Embarrassed…
😂
Is this a meltdown taking place?
# No. Just watching the idiocy. I watched from the start as Obama became the set up president and Latin America plucked one of their own , the pope. The two minorities were given powerful leaders.
The pope turned out to be interested in money and property as he encouraged the flock to surge north with the aide of catholics Pelosi and Biden while Obama simply looted and robbed and acted like a fool.
The two minorities and leadership represented proved to be enemies of the US and it’s citizens as suspected by the Diablo. It’s been transformed into a 3rd world.
The majority of the world exists in hunger, food scarcity and starvation. It’s not a good world and now is without refuge, GEB. We’re all 2nd class citizens.
Just watching the screeching and bellowing…
“Everyone else has this exception, but under the bill clergy are the only people who don’t.”
That is false.
State law already compels “law enforcement, teachers, medical professionals or child care providers to report cases of child abuse or neglect.”
The proposal amends current law to include clergy among those who have a duty to report child sex abuse.
You need to read farther down in the bill (the professor linked it in the above article). There is an exception for privileged communications, but it says only the clergy don’t get that exception, everyone else does.
“. . . only the clergy don’t get that exception . . .”
Hogwash.
Try reading the actual law. It’s very clear: Doctors and psychologists have a duty to report child abuse (even if discovered during privileged communication). And they have a “duty to warn” if other children are in danger of abuse.
So much for your argument that the proposed law is “not religiously neutral.”
In your attempt to rationalize sanctuary for child sex abusers, you’re just making stuff up.
I’m not making anything up and I’m not trying to rationalize anything. I’m only saying what’s in the bill and observing that it is not religiously neutral, which under my understanding of Scotus precedent violates the First Amendment. In particular I am focusing on the following passage:
Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication…
The above is a direct quote from the bill the professor is talking about, which he links to in the above article with the word “legislation” (see page 7). Perhaps you were reading a different bill? Or you read that and do not view it as religiously neutral?
“. . . observing that it is not religiously neutral . . .”
You’re not “observing” anything. You want your wishes to be reality.
The proposal is an *amendment* to the existing law (a point JT notes). The existing law covers doctors, psychologists, and countless other professionals (as I noted, above).
Care to explain how putting clergy in the *same* category with doctors and psychologists is *not* “religiously neutral”?
In your mad dash to get to “not religiously neutral,” you evade the actual facts of the law.
That is not reasoning or logic. That is rationalization.
I realize we’re talking about an amendment, which is why I used the term bill instead of act. That is what the professor’s article is about and so that’s what my comment was about.
Second, when the bill says every profession except clergy may keep confidential communications confidential, to me that does not seem religiously neutral. I would think any reasonable person would agree, but apparently you don’t, although you have not explained why, opting instead to deny what is in black and white in the bill to which the professor linked.
“. . . although you have not explained why . . .”
Now you’re just being willfully blind. And playing games with words.
I’ve explained why numerous times. Perhaps another will help you (though I doubt it):
If passed, clergy will be treated the *same* as the law currently treats doctors and psychologists (as well as countless other professionals). If that is not “religiously neutral,” then there is no such thing.
I quoted the portion of the bill that singles clergy out for special, and inferior, treatment. I went to the trouble of bolding it so you couldn’t miss it. If you think that is religiously neutral then there’s not much else to be gained from continued discussion. There is no doubt that the clergy is being singled out by name for distinct treatment as compared to all other professions and occupations that are governed by the proposed legislation. More overt discrimination against the clergy can hardly be imagined.
“. . . the *portion* of the bill . . .” (emphasis added)
And that is the sophistical trick you are using to deceive people.
You are intentionally dropping the context of the broader law that would subsume the proposal. If passed, the bill would subject clergy to the law that currently applies to doctors and psychologists.
But you wish to ignore the resulting law, and focus only on the proposal. That way you can claim (fallaciously): Religious discrimination!
Yours is a centuries-old, intellectually dishonest manipulation: Artificially limit the topic to manipulate the terms of the debate, and to achieve a desired conclusion. Then hope your opponents bite.
This opponent has seen that sophistical trick a thousand times. And is not biting.
# Santaria and animal sacrifice… that was a stupid court.
Ah yes, Springfield Ohio. Eat up!
Sanctity of the confessional? When did this idea arise? What use is it?
Wow! This is bad on the religious! Its definition of ‘abuse’ parts company with the utopian statutes of ‘harassment’ = @buse. And who is going to define ‘abuse’ is it different for the priest and not hearing from sharia? Abuse anymore is slippery!
# no use at all. They’ve been bugged.
The sanctity of the confessional has been around in some form since Jesus started His Church. When we confess our sins, we’re baring our souls & asking the Lord for His forgiveness, mercy & healing – that’s between the individual & God. There are priests who died to protect it, such as one emperor who was convinced his queen was unfaithful & tortured her confessor to death trying to force him to tell what her sins were.
Understand, however, that confessing our sins requires not just authentic sorrow & regret (ie if I had a chance to do things over again, I wouldn’t have done it), but also what’s called a “firm purpose of amendment” which is the determined intention to change AND to repair to the extent possible whatever damages you’ve done.
So no, the priests don’t listen to our sins & say “Ok, you’re forgiven. Bye”. They give counsel where appropriate. So, for example, if a penitent confesses to having stolen something, they will be required to make restitution in some form, depending on the circumstances. If they have broken a serious law, such as murder or assault, including sexual assault, they’ll be told to turn themselves in & get help. If they want the Lord’s forgiveness, they must do what they can to make things right.
So despite the anti-Catholic stereotypes, confession is not a get out of negative consequences card. Ideally it’s a way to encourage people who care about hurting God to reconcile their relationship, or at least for those who fear hell to do the right thing.
“The sanctity of . . .”
Every word you wrote is a rationalization for (and an attempt to obscure): Catholicism provides sanctuary for child sex abusers.
The Church’s child sex abuse scandal: *Decades* of widespread sex abuse of children by priests and nuns. Countless knew about it, yet said and did *nothing*. All those innocent children physically abused and psychologically tortured.
You can thank the “sanctity of the confessional” for contributing those horrors.
The sanctity of the confessional is “deeply rooted” in our nation’s history and tradition, recognized in common law as early as 1813.
Appeal to tradition is not an argument. It is a fallacy.
Not a single discussion in the comments about the boundaries of the “compelling government interest” test.
I thought this was a legal blog?
I would love to hear the argument for why child abuse is not a compelling government interest that survives strict scrutiny.
Icing on top would be the argument coming from one of the regulars on this site, who favors the term, “Groomer.”
“Not a single discussion in the comments about the boundaries of the “compelling government interest” test.”
Is child abuse a compelling govenrment interest – I am not sure what it is that you think you mean by that.
It is definitely a crime,
and it is definitely within the domain of government.
But even inside the domain of govenrment – we do not violate civil rights.
Others here have claimed otherwise – but do you have an example of a single instance in which Govenrment has created a DUTY for ordinary people to report suspected criminal activity by others ?
I am not aware of one. We generally hope that people will report crimes, but we do not jail them for doing so.
Leveraging people to report crimes is NOT a sufficiently compelling govenrment interests to overcome individual rights.
Every single reporting law I am aware of is very narrowly restricted to specific professions – I beleive always those licensed by the govenrment
Doctors, psychiatrists teachers – even within that scope – I think it is unconstitutional for Govenrment t compell others to report alleged crimes.
Again we hope that people will do so.
They I will note that hope is NOT absolute. It is a good thing for society to have people seek help from psychologiest.
It is a good thing to have bad people seek help from psychologists. It is arguably a bad thing to force pyschologists to do things that would incentivise people to NOT seek help, or to NOT share with psychologists their problems.
Even if there is no constittuional right to not report a crime – which I pretty much think there is.
Using a simple balancing test of societal interests, it is reasonable to conclude that having people seek help would take priority over laws that would discorage people seeking help. Even when those people might be criminals.
This gets worse when we start talking about priests. I do not beleive priests are licensed by the state – that would likely be unconstitutional.
It would absolutely be unconstitutional for the state to have the power to decide who can and can not be a priest.
So you do not even have the professional licensing nexus that you have with doctors, teachers and psychologist.
There are also differences between priests and psychologists and doctors and teachers.
The catholic theology of the confessional is extremely well developed and priest know it is great detail – and I do not.
But it would be my guess that the duty of silence of the confessional is limited to the penitent.
That is a child reported they were being sexually abused a priest could reveal that to authorities – With that childs permission.
That would be similar to the rporting requirement for doctors and teachers – where their jobs results in their seeing EVIDENCE of abuse – bruises and the like and/or reports of bad conduct from victims.
That is NOT the same as an abused coming to a psychologist where society is likely much worse off if those people do NOT seek help.
Though I would note that even with Doctors – we want parents – even abusive parents to bring their children to doctors for treatment.
Mandatory reporting requireemnts for doctors decrease the likelyhood of the parents of abusde children getting treatment for them.
You can balance the interests that I address above differently – you can decide that you are willing to accept that fewer people will seek help if you compell reporting.
But the very fact you MUST engage in a balancing of interests, means that you have already lost the “COMPELLING government interest” argument.
I do not beleive these laws are a good idea – not for teachers, not for priests.
I do not beleive they are constitutional.
But I am perfectly happy to accept that no matter what we are gambling one set of harms vs. another.
When that does not run afoul of the constitution and individual rights then it is within the legitimate domain of govenrment.
But it OBVIOUSLY does not reach the level of a “compelling govenrment interest” – not unless you choose to ignore many of the possible consequences for such laws.
This is simply wrong. Literally every adult in my state of NC is required to report child abuse:
“A person age 18 or older who knows or reasonably should have known that a juvenile
(child under age 18) has been or is the victim of a violent offense, sexual offense, or
misdemeanor child abuse must make an immediate report to local law enforcement.”
So, no, it isn’t limited to individuals licensed by the state. Why would you make that up?
# least restrictive?
Yes limiting the mandatory reporting to children in immediate danger would be the least restrictive means.
# Take the example of national security as a compelling government interest being applied right now in border enforcement and deportation.
The language in the 14A born or naturalized…under the jurisdiction of the US. Can a national of another nation commit treason against the US? There is no allegiance, yet, there are millions of foreign nationals living within the jurisdiction of the US. Is that a compelling interest?
A person, a US citizen travels to another nation and commits a crime not within the US jurisdiction.
Upon return can the person face prosecution for the crime not within the US jurisdiction? Thus Epsteins Island or southeast Asia travelers etc.
Is the confessional under the jurisdiction of Vatican City, a sovereign nation? The US has no jurisdiction over the confessional. It is the Vatican’s jurisdiction.
The argument is probably about jurisdiction and not freedom of religion.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
“The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
– P.A. Madison
In 1967 the scotus permitted dual citizenship as constitutional. Pre – 1967 the US did not permit. Really old, elderly naturalized citizens are simply US citizens having no other allegiance.
Imagine pre WWII newly naturalized Italian-American citizens drafted into WWII and fought in the Battle of Anzio Beach. Must have been difficult.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of 1869 “decided” that secession was unconstitutional, that because secession was not prohibited, secession was prohibited.
The Supreme Court of 1973 “decided” that abortion was a constitutional right; the Supreme Court of 2022 discovered and revealed that abortion is a matter for states per the Constitution, and that is irrefutably correct.
And so on.
Juridical corruption abounds, demanding an investigation by DOGE.
Herman Goering’s nephew (son of his brother who emigrated to the US post WW 1) Flew bombers for the USAAF and bombed Germany.
Thought you might want to know. There is even a book written about it.
# Well, Trump is doing this all wrong. He should have simply stated his case and asked for a plain reading of the text and case law. He didn’t.
Smh
# post a sign in the confessional instructing penitent to keep it general. I sinned should do or I sinned in the 9th commandment category.
I’m sure Jesus will take that under advisement – no doubt it never occurred to Him 😉
Here, leftists. The following is for you. Because you are winning the Internet.
No, not the video — the Comments section.
Enjoy!
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1887733418638578139
Can’t wait to see whose pockets the money went into.
Senator John Kennedy goes through the list:
Here’s some more … stuff.
https://x.com/RitaPanahi/status/1887753313258455091
Announcement: The Babylon Bee Is Willing To Promote Any US Government Cause In Exchange For $34 Million
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — The Babylon Bee would like to formally announce that it is willing to promote any and all U.S. government causes for the low price of $34 million. This marks a stark change from the previous company policy of mercilessly making fun of the government.
With other media publications like POLITICO cashing in, it’s been harder than ever to compete in the media space. That’s why, effective immediately, The Babylon Bee will discuss any topic from any point of view for just $34 million. This will ensure the survival of The Babylon Bee for many years to come.
The offer is good for precisely one article promoting a specific government cause or viewpoint. Additional articles will require additional payments. If you are interested in multiple articles, bundle deals will be announced soon.
We look forward to many rewarding partnerships with our new friends in the U.S. Government.
Well, here comes me with another aspect of child abuse and neglect – The Racial Aspect. Personally, I think the numbers are higher than what is given here. I do not think that you can have whole swathes of urban schools with no child proficient in either Math or English, without massive parental neglect. Not to mention super-high truancy rates, and juvenile crime rates. I wonder how the State of Washington views this? Anyway, an excerpt:
“But Chang and the activists don’t want to talk about what is causing these disparities. Besides their higher fatality rate, black children are almost twice as likely as white ones to be abused or neglected—a rate of 13.2 for every 100,000 kids vs. 7.4 for white kids. (Native Americans suffer at the highest rate: 15.5 victims for every 100,000 kids.)
Advocates claim this is the result of racism, but then how do you explain the victimization rate for Hispanic children, which is almost exactly the same as that for white ones? Or that especially in cities like New York, the vast majority of the investigators are black or Hispanic professionals? And how do you explain all these black children dying at the hands of their own family members or other dangerous people living in their homes?
Nevertheless, in an effort to combat the structural racism of the “family policing system,” a movement to abolish the child-welfare system has sprung up. Using the “Defund the Police” movement as a model, its leaders demand the elimination of foster care and congregate care, of mandated reporting of maltreatment (by teachers and doctors, for instance) and of drug testing of infants and new mothers. They also want less police involvement in domestic violence (because it leads to more reporting of child maltreatment).
Some of these demands have already been met. Gotham’s public hospitals can no longer test new or expectant mothers for drug use without explicit permission. Judges are using racial disparities as a reason for failing to remove black children from homes where they would never leave white children. And more children are being left in dangerous homes by agencies across the country like ACS.
Just last year, baby Legacy Beauford was allegedly murdered at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend, a violent felon who had previously come to the attention of authorities. Jaycee Eubanks, 4, was allegedly beaten to death by his stepfather after her day care reported signs of abuse to ACS. And Julissia Batties, 7, was allegedly killed by her stepbrother, a young man ACS reportedly questioned before the fatal incident.
As in the movement to defund the police, the effect of tying the hands of child protective services will hurt minority communities the most. Instead of asking questions about which kids are most at risk and how we can keep them safe from their abusers, authorities are looking at their skin color and making decisions based on a misguided idea of social justice. The results are nothing less than deadly.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/black-children-are-suffering-higher-rates-of-abuse-and-woke-officials-are-making-it-worse/
You may enjoy this article. Excerpt follows:
The Education Department and the KKK
Congress authorized today’s Education Department in 1979, transferring authority over federal education policy from the 1953 Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Constitution didn’t grant Congress regulatory or spending power over education, so for most of U.S. history, education was run primarily by states, localities, churches and parents.
In 1867, Congress created a federal education department, but the tiny department was confined to gathering information and was soon reduced to a bureau. Establishing an education department didn’t return as a popular ambition until the 1920s, when the KKK and other nativist groups made it an explicit goal.
Nativists had supported the 19th-century growth of public schools. They viewed foreigners and the nation’s existing religious diversity—especially Catholicism—as threats to the dominance of Protestantism. To defend their vision of Protestant Americanism, they demanded compulsory public-school attendance, especially in the 1920s.
As the KKK’s Imperial Wizard Hiram Evans declared at the time, “We’ll take every child in all America and put him in the public school of America. . . . We will build a homogenous people, we will grind out Americans like meat out of a grinder.”
Wall Street Journal
# In the case of Roman Catholics the penitent is compelled by the religion and has no avenue of free speech. Persuasive religions use fear of punishment from the ever loving God. Compelled speech is part of thecreligion itself. The confession must , shall be done.
People can be confused or conflate love and punishment is some cases by such religions.
Since criminal law does not require compelled speech under torture the confession cannot be used-Illegally produced confessions without Miranda of of no use in courts. The church can compell under threat of eternal torture. That must be the difference.
😂
# ^^^ the police would be pleased if they could torture the accused for a confession , too. How about I’ll give you a million dollars for the confession? You see it everyday. MSN.
I’ll give you 8 million per year if you just lie and deceive people.
RC is compelled speech by torture. Doesn’t matter if you’re moral. Covered under 1A.
So many anonymous posters… no sinner is compelled by the Church to confess his sins. As to “eternal torture,” the sinner should have thought about that before sinning. Read Dante.
Never forget the lie this monster spouted to get power: ” In August of 2024 he held a press conference which used groceries such as packaged foods, meats, produce, and eggs as a backdrop. It was all very theatrical. “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One,” he promised.
After he was elected but before he was sworn in he sat down with NBC’s Meet the Press and reflected on how he secured his victory. “I won on the border, and I won on groceries,” he explained to Kristen Welker. “Very simple word, groceries. Like almost — you know, who uses the word? I started using the word — the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that. We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
Shortly after being sworn in Trump changed his tune. “They all said inflation was the No. 1 issue. I said, ‘I disagree,’” Trump said. “I talked about inflation too, but how many times can you say that an apple has doubled in cost?”
Well, Day One has come and gone, and what has the monster done? Pardoned cop beaters, directed stripper-haired Bondi to go after his perceived enemies, claimed that the US will take over Gaza and move out Palestinians in order to turn Gaza into a resort, pissed off Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world, which will doom any chance for normalization of relations with Israel, allowed his largest campaign contributor to send his own employees to invade secure computer records containing our most-sensitive information, like personnel records, bank routing and account numbers for recipients of benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Pensions, military pay and federal employee pay, demanding that people resign, without any analysis as to their jobs, whether someone could replace them or the merit of what they do and what their loss would mean for Americans, shoved through unqualified and conflicted losers dumber than he is and who will do as they are tol to head agencies by threatening Republicans with primarying them—etc, etc, etc–all as spelled out in Project 2025 that he also LIED about being the game plan. Oh, and he’s kept attorneys and courts busy with seeking injunctions against his unconstitutional mandates and bullying tactics–and he keeps on LOSING.
Why do we have to keep dealing with this nonsense.
Egg prices spiked because Bird Flu has been found. States are trying to beat it by quarantining flocks or even the whole state – if they succeed
prices will drop dramatically in a few weeks. If they fail millions of chickens will be exterminated and in 6 months when the flocks have recovered egg prices will drop precipitously.
This is called the law of supply and demand – not inflation.
Inflation is NOT under control – a MAJOR part of accomplishing that is reducing govenrment spending.
Much of what those of you on the left are b****ing about is the efforts to reduce government spending.
60,000 federal workers have accepted Trump’s buyout – a Federal judge did NOT stop the buyout – he extended it – giving federal workers more time.
Not only will this save hundreds of billions, but it means tens of thousands of people being returned tot he real economy where anything they do will actually produce something the value of this act is double the savings.
You should be Cheering DOGE not ranting about it.
Trumps supporters take Trump seriously not litterally
Left wing dingbats like you take him litterally not seriously.
Real prices are near certain to drop even with current near 3% inflation.
But when spending cuts reduces the FED’s monetary pressure we will see dramatic drops in real prices and possibly even drops in nominal prices
But this takes time, and proceeds slowly – it also happens AUTOMATICALLY so long as government does not create inflation.
In 1983 when I got married I bought the top of the line Amana Side By side refridgerator – it cost be $1200 wholesale.
Today I can but a fridge that is far better at Lowes for $999. Media income in 1983 was 24K/year so the Fridge cost two weeks work to earn.
Today media wages are 60K so the better fridge costs less than one week to earn.
Your honestly slurring Bondi ? She has been the very successful AG of the 3rd largest Attorney Generals office in the US for 8 years.
And she wiped the floor with left wing idiots like Schiff that tried to attack her.
And this nonsense that Trump is pissing off everyone in the mideast – Really ? We heard that last time.
Trump signed the Abraham accords – the largest mideast peace deal EVER and the only deal since Carter.
Trump left the Mideast at peace and inherited it in total chaos.
And managed to get a peace deal before taking office.
There will be a peace deal in Israel, And the Saudi’s will join the Abraham accords.
The ONLY question is how long will that take.
Trump’s remarks about Gaza made something crystal clear to Hamas, To the Saudis, and to Qatar.
Gaza is valueable. The palestinians can choose peace and prosperity or they can choose terrorism war poverty and death.
I do not know if there will be a two state solution. I do not care.
Hoestly the Saudis do not care either outside Iran and Yemen most of the mideast wants peace.
Absolutely NO ONE wants the Palestinians.
Another thing that Trump successfully highlighted.
You say a two state solution is required – and that may happen.
But the palestinains virtually disappear as a people without billions in aide from Qatar and SA.
And Trump just made it perfectly clear that Aide is entirely unnecescary.
Not only did he point out that Gaza is valueable – and even more valuable without the Palestinians,
but that one solution is to shove them into Jordan Egypt, Saudi Arabia.
That is also not going to happen – but just like invading Greenland and The Panama Canal
the Threat pushes people to negotiate.
Regardless The Saudis actually Trust Trump – or there would be no talks – there were no such talks when Biden was president.
But this is all negotiation. The Saudis may trust Trump – mostly what that means is that if they make a deal with him that Deal will be honored,
not so with Biden. I know this is hard for you left wing nuts – but Trust does NOT mean getting what you want.
It means knowing that whatever deal is agreed to – it will be honored.
Israel needs a deal, The Saudis need a deal, Trump does not need a deal – but he wants one.
The palestinians have needed a deal for 75 years but have been too stupid to accept one.
Increasingly the Palestinians are mostly irrelevant to the negotiations. and that is why they are likely to succeed.
Saudi arabia was not even a part of prior negotiations with the Palestinians. The Saudia did not come to Camp David with Clinton and Arafat.
The Saudis are in this – because the Palestinians can not make a deal and do not have anything to offer to get one.
The Saudis have something Israel wants and Israel has something the Saudis want.
Palestine is just a chip on the table.
No Trump did not piss off the Saudi’s and the rest of the Muslim world. He just gave the Saudis and Israel more chips to paly with
and deleveraged the already weak Palestinians even further.
In the LONG run – Gaza will with near certainty actually be a fashionable mediterian resort.
The only question is Whose mediterainian resort.
Gaza is not an open air prison – as left wing nuts claim – it is a very valuable peice of real estate that has been destroyed by the Palestinians.
Gaza is actually capable of feeding its own people – it does NOT need billions in outside aide.
It exported Crops in 2006 when there were israeli settlements there. It was also very successful at fishing in the past.
And it actually was a mediterainian resort in the past. Since Hamas made is a h311 hole and a dangerous place – no one comes there.
Trump opened the eyes of the Saudis and the Qataris to the value of Gaza.
Somebody is going to have to pay Billions to rebuild Gaza.
Trump just made it perfectly clear that can be an incredible investment.
That is a real reason to reach a peace deal – if only there were no palestinians there.
Trump made absolutely no secret during the campaign that he was taking a scythe to federal spending.
He made no secret of the fact that Musk was going to wield the scythe.
No one is invading secure computer records. The President of the united states is demanding that the executive branch offices that the constitution gives him total control over, tell their Boss how they are spending the money they have been give.
These departments have been stonewalling congress for decades. Frankly they have been stonewalling the president for decades – Even Bill Clinton tried to end USAID. Musk has opened up the books – you rant about secure ssytems – what USAID has some right to keep secret the stup way it is spending taxpayers money ?
What Musk is finding should be a massive embarrassment to those of you on the left.
Yet here you are attacking Musk for exposing that government agencies are wasteful, and corrupt.
Worse still – not only was USAID spending advancing political agenda’s that violate the hatch act in the US – i.e they are CRIMINAL.
But it was actually pissing off foreign countries in the process. Do you honestly think that most of the rest of the world want the US funding trans ballets in their countries ?
You rant about the records DOGE is gaining access to – are you so stupid that you do not grasp these are all records of BANK TRANSFERS ?
Do you understand these are NOT top secret – that in addition to US Treasury having this information – that the various private banks across the country ALSO have that information. Much of the rest of your claims are false – no DOGE is not getting your DOB, your social security #, yout tax return. But google, apple, the credit bureas of he united states, everyone you have ever borrowed money from bough a home from rented an apartment from bough a car from has all the same information – and more.
“demanding that people resign, without any analysis as to their jobs”
The boss can do that – regardless no one is irreplaceable. Musk fired 70% of Twitter – he did not “analyse their jobs” – he just fired them.
And their jobs either did not matter or got done by someone else.
No one is irreplaceable certainly not anyone in government.
These people have receives generous buyouts and are now free to seek actually productive private jobs – that is a double win.
“whether someone could replace them”
If they need replaced they will be replaced – few do.
“the merit of what they do”
If there is merit to what they do – others will do it.
“what their loss would mean for Americans”
There loss will mean that unproductive people will be free to seek productive private jobs – and get paid well to go job hunting – a win win
especially for the american people.
I would note that the public is seeing all of what they were doing and are aghast – why are we spending hundreds of billions on this rot.
Publicizing this was a lose lose for the left.
Do you honestly think a blue collar worker is shedding tears over USAID employees getting a 9 month buyout to stop paying for trans ballets in Columbia ?
Why are those of you on the left so stupid as to keep drawing attention to this ?
“shoved through unqualified and conflicted losers dumber than he is and who will do as they are tol to head agencies by threatening Republicans with primarying them”
“Donald Trump is not an idiot. Donald Trump, let me be very clear, Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all his critics. Do you know why we know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House, and the popular vote, he has a massive media ecosystem bigger than the mainstream built around him and for him, and a religious fervor in a political movement around him. And he is best buddies with the richest person in the history of the world. And the most relevant Kennedy is with him.
This dude is a phenomenon. He is the most powerful human on earth, and in our lifetime, and we’re supposed to be like, “Well how did this guy…?” We look like idiots.”
Van Jones.
Trump is SMARTER THAN YOU, calling him names is not going to make him look worse or you look better.
Trump’s nominees are the Future of the GOP – and the Future of the country.
They should terrify Democrats – they are young, they are very media savy, they are popular, and they are very capable.
The thin margins Republicans have in the house and Senate have proven a boon to Trump.
They have justified his diminished picks of congressmen to keep from upsetting the balance of power in congress.
They have enabled Trump – the ultimate outsider to publicly coronate the future leaders of the GOP.
These are the people who are going to Wipe the asses of the Butigiegs and Newsomes and Hoschuls and Whitmers
As the Democrat and Republican old guard are sent out to pasture.
I would note that it is Shannahan a former democrat and still independent that has Threatened to primary senators that voted against RFK jr.
Regardless, The GOP Senate Old Guard needs to get in line – the voters have spoken – Trump is delivering on the promises he made to voters for their vote. And these are the people who shared the stage with him through the election.
These are the people he said would be his govenrment.
Senate confirmations are almost a formality – the people you loath the most were elected on Nov. 5th almost as much as Trump was.
Voters knew what they were voting for – and YOU ranted and raved constantly making absolutely sure that Voters knew what they were getting – so please do not pretend any of this was some secret.
What has Trump done since getting elected that is not in line with the promises he made while campaigning ?
You say this is all project 2025. That nonsense had no traction during the campaign and it has none now.
There was no secret agenda – Trump’s platform was RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
One page on a web site – not 80 pages of incomprehensible gibberish at the DNC.
No the 900 pages of Project 2025 – that no one – especially not its detractors have read. Certainly not you.
If what Trump si doing is project 2025 – it is also Agenda 47, it is what he promised.
it is what people voted for.
“he’s kept attorneys and courts busy with seeking injunctions against his unconstitutional mandates and bullying tactics–and he keeps on LOSING”
Keep up the lawfare. it is just delaying the inevitable. Trump’s EOs held up in 2017, and they will hold up this time.
With certainty you can venue shop and cause delays. But you are going to lose nearly all challenges.
And just make things harder for yourself in the future will making yourself look like losers and bad in the eye of the electorate.
Do you really think defending the people who were funding Trans ballets in foreign country is wining votes ?
Are you looking to get wiped out in 2026 too ?
Trump is setting Democrats up for more losses in 2026. Will that work ? I do not know. It would be historic for the party in power to gain in mid terms. I am not sure it has ever happened. But Trump is rope a doping you.
Trump’s EO on Birth right citizenship is probably the least likely to survive constitutional scrutiny – but it is also incredibly popular.
Trump wins with it even if he loses.
Better still on this and myriads of other things Trump has lured you left wing idiots into fighting for incredibly unpopular things.
You keep ranting about medicare and Social Security – and Trump will be speeking to voters about kickbacks to corrupt politicians and payoffs to the media and billions wasted in foreign aide for stupid things like Trans ballets in countries that could only piss off .
Trump repeatedly picks issue that have 80% of the public behind him – and gets YOU to idiotically try to defend the 20% fringe.
And you are so stupid that you are jumping into the schiff head first.
Well put.
Jeffersonian
P is for Pelosi, who takes plea$ure fleecing the Amerikkkan sheeple, pimping workkking pham-uh-leez and being in politikkks to promote hangings of Knee Grows who leave the DNC Plantation, plentiful pedophilia and profitable child sexual mutilation that would make defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick prodigal.
Blame my punny run-on sentence on sleep deprivation > 36 hrs, Rxs of 10 mg Oxycontin, 20 mg Meloxican, 1 g Acetaminophen, 81 mg ASP, and titanium buttons and stainless steel wire screwed into my humerus. P is for pain! And Pfunnies. Pectoralis major sternal head and tendon torn off of humerus because men in their 60s love to go heavy on incline bench press. 💪🏾🙏🏾💊
The fact is that we’re all on a mission for the American people, for America’s working families. My whole passion about being in politics is for the children
– Nancy Pelosi dressed in drag with drag hag fellow / fella Andrea “Im outta of here MSNBC” Pmitchell
Estovir: Best wishes for your fast and reduced pain/inflammation recovery. We need your humerus here! lin.
(of course, what I mean is that I’m glad you didn’t forfeit your humorous!)–(feeble attempt at Fri p.m. humor)
Lin – that was actually pretty good!
Cheers,
-Uncle Henry
Thank you lin and Floyd! I know good people when I read them.
The one arm Catholic troll paid by the Vatican. Joking
😜
Estovir, please get to feeling better soon! I feel your pain!
Estovir,
Wishing you a seedy recovery!
What is ‘ordo amoris?’ Vice President JD Vance invokes this medieval Catholic concept
Vice President JD Vance recently cited medieval Catholic theology in justifying the immigration crackdown under President Donald Trump.
By: AP ~ February 6, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/jd-vance-catholic-theology-migration-e868af574fb2e742c6ed3d756c569769
Justice Sotomayor renews her opposition to the court’s ruling that ex-presidents have broad immunity
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her conservative colleagues are risking the court’s legitimacy with decisions affording President Donald Trump broad immunity and overturning longstanding precedents on other issues.
In her first public comments since Trump began his second term in the White House, Sotomayor told a Kentucky audience that the court has gone too far, too fast on a range of issues. She cited the Trump case during a lengthy response to a question about sagging public confidence in the court.
By: Bruce Schreiner ~ February 6, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-5fa4c4b684e52a47fa513485b7168728
As Trump pushes the limits of presidential power, the courts push back
WASHINGTON (AP) — A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.
It’s happened with Trump’s attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.
Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.
By: Chris Megerian and Lindsay Whitehurst ~ February 6, 2025
[Link] apnews.com/article/donald-trump-constitution-courts-lawsuits-796543ab4a3d5589f47fd66fd9d6bfef
As Trump pushes the limits of presidential power, the courts push back
Isn’t that the very type of dialectical materialism that Marxists love? So I take it then you view this as a good development, right?
# Locke- life, liberty and property.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
# He’s fine with getting these laws cleared up before scotus. Then there’s firm ground. He’s losing no sleep.
# ordo amoris Latin for ordered love or love with order and not chaos presumably. Augustine creation.
Amoris or love as defined by Augustine is devotion and obedience. That’s how love for God is acted out or shown.
Question to the convict: was the murder you committed good? Answer: well it was good for me. I hated that sucker. I’ve gone to confession.
# OT
USAID- the biggest recipients are Ukraine, Jordan, Yemen, Afghanistan.
Why is the US giving money to middle eastern nations? The US is still involved in Afghanistan?
What a farce when the US has a massive homeless population.
ATS the game is called rope-a-dope.
Your the dope.