Violations of national security policies is a serious charge for a sitting president. And for him to have prized classified documents next to his prized corvette is shocking. President Biden should have better protected and secured that corvette from theft. That in and of itself should be a felony!
But, in terms of human law and God’s law, that a sitting president who brags about his Catholic Faith while being the most rabid proponent of abortion and even in the final moments of pregnancy and I suspect he supports that a botched abortion, meaning the baby lives, should result in finishing what was begun, cold blooded murdering of the child.
Corvette Gate is nothing compared to that. President Biden needs to repent for the sake of his salvation!
36 comments:
Fr K will be working overtime to come up with his excuses for his Abortion Buddy!
From “The Australian” - Jacquelin Magnay (Rome), Friday, 13th January:
“Cardinal George Pell’s arch rival in the Vatican, a disgraced cardinal now on trial for financial corruption, has denied sending money to Australia to prop up the sex abuse charges against him and said he prayed God would ‘forgive’ the Australian cleric.
Disgraced Cardinal Angelo Becciu said on the death of Cardinal Pell: ‘ May the Lord forgive him for fueling slander’……Cardinal Pell had long believed that Cardinal Becciu had diverted two mystery payments to Australia to pay people to raise child sex allegations against him……
Cardinal Becciu’s comments came as Cardinal Pell had openly warned the Pope that his pet project, revising synodality - the mission of the church - was a toxic nightmare couched in Neo Marxist jargon and that the process being undertaken was liable to manipulation.”
While there may be explanations as to wh classified dcuments are not maintained appropriately, I don't think there are any "excuses" for doing so.
Let's look at the response from the loser Trump when classified documents were found in his possession.
He tried to EXCUSE his wrongdoing, saying that they were "presidential papers" and, therefore, his property.
WRONG - Presidential papers are not the property of ex-presidents. The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209
He objected to the FBI raid on Mar-al-Lago, saying he had been cooperating with officials.
WRONG - His lawyers had months, many months, to return the purloined papers. They did not do so.
Twice his lawyers stated that all documents had been identified and returned.
WRONG - More documents were found.
Trump claimed the documents were personal and, therefore , protected by the attorney-client privilege.
WRONG - Presidential papers are public property. (See above Presidential Records Act)
Trump filed a lawsuit to prevent the legally mandated return of the papers.
CASE DISMISSED - "The decision by the three-judge panel — which consisted of Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher — was a significant victory for the Justice Department, which has been probing Trump's handling of sensitive government records for several months." (Miami Herald 12 December 2022)
The Supreme Court rejected Trump's excuses "Supreme Court turns away Trump objections in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case" (NPR October 13, 2022)
When classified documents were found in Biden's possession, "...the President’s [Biden's] personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession of the Archives.,..."
Trump stalled and stalled and stalled.
Paul, I think you posted this on the wrong post.
Fr Partisan K never disappoints. You should resign and go work for the DNC - they could put you in charge of strategies to expand abortion and gender grooming of little children
FRMJK, presidents are corrupt including the “reigning” one. Nothing new in that. But President Trump was the president and had all these documents, legally or illegally. As a VP, Biden had no right to any of these classified documents.
We need to ask now, how and what was this all discovered and a week before a National election? If there was an intentional cover-up and delay in publicly finding these at a rather peculiar time, because those in his administration knew that the discovery of these documents could affect the election, then this is a bombshell story in terms of a temporary cover-up to protect democrats in the election.
Trump is not a sitting president. He’s out of office. Biden is in office and thus his case is far more serious morally and politically.
I say lock them both up! And make it a trinitry and include Hillary.
Fr K,
LOL - Trump’s attorneys were cooperating with the government so the Gestapo’s raid on Mar a Lago was an egregious act of government over-reach - even Alan Dershowitz called it an improper search. But I know you know more about the law than Dershowitz - the DNC is calling you!
Sorry, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, the comparison isn't apt.
Vice Presidents DO have access to classified materials.
If grabbing women by the p***y isn't a bombshell to impact an election, this event doesn't even register on any scale.
Further, from the Intelligencer:
"How is this different from Trump’s documents scandal?
It appears that both Biden and Trump violated the Presidential Records Act and had in their possession classified records that should have been with the National Archives. But there are some key differences:
• So far, it seems Biden had fewer than a dozen classified documents, while more than 300 classified materials were removed from Mar-a-Lago.
• While both presidents may have mishandled classified documents, the Trump investigation — which is now being handled by Special Counsel Jack Smith — involves potential obstruction of justice. At this point, it appears Biden is complying fully with investigators.
• As Sauber noted, the National Archives hadn’t requested these documents from Biden. Instead, his team quickly alerted NARA of their existence. In contrast, NARA reportedly spent more than a year trying to retrieve materials from Trump after he left office. They found 184 classified documents, including 25 “top secret” documents, in 15 boxes of materials retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January 2022. Months later, the Trump team turned over 38 more classified documents in response to a grand-jury subpoena — but the Feds came to believe that that they weren’t complying fully. The Justice Department obtained a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago in August and recovered hundreds more classified documents.
• All we know about the Biden classified documents so far is that they supposedly cover non-nuclear topics related to Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom. Trump reportedly had a plethora of extremely sensitive documents in his possession, including information on a foreign government’s nuclear capabilities and intelligence gathered by secret human sources.
• As vice-president, Biden did not have the power to declassify documents. As president, Trump did have broad declassification powers, but he’s made dubious claims about how he exercised that right. His allies have claimed he had a “standing order” to declassify anything he removed from the White House, though there is no evidence of this and his lawyers have not pursued this argument in court. At one point, Trump claimed the president can declassify “even by thinking about it,” but that nonsensical argument is largely irrelevant. As the New York Times noted, none of the criminal laws cited by the FBI in obtaining a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago depended on whether the documents contained classified information.
thanks for confirming what i wrote—let’s throw them all in jail and include Hillary!
Father McDonald,
Be careful what you say about Hellery - the Arkancide squads may be put there.
Fr K - you’re unhinged. I can’t imagine your bishop being thrilled with your non stop shilling for the Party of Moloch
I don't know more about the law than Dershowitz, but I suspect the Circuit COurt and SUpreme Court do...
Trump filed a lawsuit to prevent the legally mandated return of the papers.
CASE DISMISSED - "The decision by the three-judge panel — which consisted of Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher — was a significant victory for the Justice Department, which has been probing Trump's handling of sensitive government records for several months." (Miami Herald 12 December 2022)
The Supreme Court rejected Trump's excuses "Supreme Court turns away Trump objections in Mar-a-Lago classified documents case" (NPR October 13, 2022)
I just KNEW Fr. K couldn't control himself when you published this post. We've all been waiting to see him come out and defend his decrepit leftist hero!
I can't help but wonder--is her REALLY a priest, or just an underground consultant for MSNBC?
It never fails to impress me how consistently the left condemns the right for that they themselves are guilty of.
Thomas, both Biden and Trump are guilty. I'm not defending anyone. No excuses. But there is a tremendous difference is in how they responded.
Any reasonable person can see that.
Trump is Mr. Bluster and Biden is Mr.Humble, both are acting, both are duplicitous both are liars. God forgive them and may they repent and escape the fires of hell.
Some people would do well to worry about their own escape from hell...
Has anyone seen the latest Biden gaffe where he mistakes a Salvation Army Officer for a member of the secret service?
If Trump had made half the “gaffes”, half the verbal blunders and made half the bizarre statements and claims as Biden (eg “where’s Jackie?”; and introducing a granddaughter as his deceased son; and claiming to have cancer etc and so on….) he would have been OUT as President under the 25th amendment - and with the assistance and agreement of many republicans.
What constitutes a "gaffe," one wonders...
Trump: "I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf." 8 August 2016
Trump played golf 298 times in his four years in office. The cost to taxpayers:
AF1 flights to Mar-a-Lago: $60,138,000
AF1 flights to Bedminster: $23,515,500
Costs to Bedminster, Palm Beach*: $25,458,300
Cost to guard coast off Mar-a-Lago: $29,972,000
Luxury car rental in Turnberry, Scotland: $1,260,139
Cost of stay at Trump Turnberry, Scotland: $68,800
Total cost of staying in Doonbeg, Ireland: $3,600,000
Total Cost: $144,012,739
Trump speaking of Senator John McCain: "“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” July 17, 2015
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” December 7, 2015
“I was down there, and I watched our police and our firemen, down on 7-Eleven, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down. And I saw the greatest people I’ve ever seen in action.” April 18, 2016
“Look at my African American over here!” June 3, 2016
“It’s against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying ‘This is ridiculous.’” July 30, 2016, in an interview with ABC about the presidential debate schedule. The NFL categorically denied sending such a letter.
“ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.” August 10, 2016
And the list goes on and on and on... "Trump, not Biden, corners the market on gaffes"
Biden never said that the “1917” Spanish Flu pandemic brought “World War II” to an end. Or pronounced the name of a well-known national park as if addressing an audience of Jewish hipsters: “Yo, Semite." https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/8/13/21367815/trump-not-biden-corners-the-market-on-gaffes-gene-lyons
The obsession continues to reveal itself.
Posting facts is an obsession now, is it?
I guess Forbes is obsessed with the Dow Jones average, the Weather Channel is obsessed with the Current Conditions, and members of the Trump cult are obsessed with trying to run away from the facts.
YES! YOU NAILED IT! All those things are obsessions and OCD people have a field day with these facts and figures and commentary. Thanks for clarifying this for all of us OCDs!
Wow, Father K, I didn't even mention YOUR name, but, as they say--if the shoe fits...
News agencies are not obsessed because their business is news.
When a priest, whose "business" or vocation is bringing Jesus Christ to the faithful shows more interest in politics than anything else, well, THAT'S obsession. Father you treat politics as YOUR religion...at least on this page.
No liberal will ever suffer criticism on this blog without YOU defending him and YOU must, will and shall always have the last word. There's another psychological term for that too, but the "o" word is bad enough, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not giving you any more fodder for the inevitable pedantic putdown that will surely follow this.
Jerome - WOW. As if. Um, you'll notice I didn't mention your name either, Buster Brown.
If you are worried about a priest's interest in politics, please direct your imaginary wrath at the Blog Owner for his post: "I KRISTEN PRESIDENT BIDEN’S UNFORTUNATE SETTING THE EXAMPLE OF TAKING HOME TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS: “CORVETTE GATE!” Otherwise, set it to music and sing it in an alley.
If Trump did not exist, we would have had to invent him. Oh sorry, that’s George Santos.
Sophia here: Fr. K. several of us on this blog, have asked you to share with us what your "proportionate" reason(s) is/are for voting for pro-abortion politicians especially over the last several cycles when they can definitely be characterized as pro-EXTREME abortion politicians. The operative word is "PROPORTIONATE". So of course we knew you did not have any.You merely have reasons (very unreasonable ones I may add!) This is precisely Why the Beloved Faithful, Guardian and Teacher of the perennial Teaching of Holy Mother Church and the Sacred Scriptures condemned "The Tyranny of Relativism" of which this is a prime example.
"Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas clarifies the teaching of the Church on voting for pro-abortion politicians.
'Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life....'
Cont'd
Sophia here: 'Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.
Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).'
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159
Sophia here: The person who condemned "The Tyranny of Relativism" was of course
Pope Benedict XVl! May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, Rest in Peace, Amen. I should not have taken it for granted that everyone who reads this blog, knows that.
Sophia states: "Fr. K. several of us on this blog, have asked you to share with us what your "proportionate" reason(s) is/are for voting for pro-abortion politicians..."
Yes, you have. And you, among others, have stated that there is no possibility of such proportionate reasons existing. First, note that that stance puts you at odds with the Church's guidance on voting. The Church states that there CAN be such proportionate reasons. "As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) put it, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Second, since you believe there can be no proportionate reasons, explaining my reasoning would be a waste of time as you would, I am certain, dismiss any and all explanations.
Sophia, you assert: "So of course we knew you did not have any. [proportionate reasons]"
You know nothing of the sort. Period.
You err regarding formal cooperation. Formal cooperation requires a voter, in this case, to promote the evil of abortion. I do not intend to promote the evil of abortion when I vote.
EDIT:
You err regarding formal cooperation. Formal cooperation requires a voter, in this case, to promote the evil of abortion. I do not intend to promote the evil of abortion when I vote.
Should read "You err regarding formal cooperation. Formal cooperation requires a voter, in this case, to intend to promote the evil of abortion. I do not intend to promote the evil of abortion when I vote."
As best I can tell, the term “proportionate reasons” is unclear and there is disagreement about what it means. Does it mean “equally serious,” “sufficiently serious,” or something else? The USCCB gives helpful guidance, in which it seems to equate the phrase with “truly grave moral reasons,” as opposed to reasons that simply “advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or . . . ignore a fundamental moral evil” (see section 35 on page 22 of “Faithful Citizenship” cited below).
The USCCB document in question, “Faithful Citizenship,” provides a very helpful framework for Catholics to work through in forming their consciences when voting. In my own view, a good faith reading of this document permits Catholics to vote Democrat or Republican, provided they do so “conscientiously,” guided by the multiple considerations set out in this framework. See especially sections 17-39 on pp. 18-24.
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
It seems to me that those who experience the greatest conscientious conflict and struggle are Catholics who vote Democrat. I suspect there is very little conflict and struggle for most of those who vote Republican as they can cast a vote for candidates who both oppose abortion and advocate other policies they approve of anyway. Therefore, I am unsure how well positioned they are to judge those who vote Democrat despite the Democratic position an abortion. (Please correct me if I am being too harsh here.)
None of this is intended to be pro-Democrat. As I have made it abundantly clear, I regard both parties as corrupt. This said, until our politics can be improved, practical choices must be made in the real world, not the ideal world, even as we might try to work toward the latter.
Sophia here: I expected nothing more from such devoted practioners of “ Relativism”, whom nothing and no one but an All Powerful and Merciful God can turn aside from their support of the enablers of child sacrifice! After all He converted even the notorious
Abortion King, Dr.Bernard Nathanson, who bragged that he was “personally responsible for 75,000 abortions whether performed by his own hand ( including his own child), presided over or through instructing fellow practitioners in the grim art of performing them.” He was very influential in the Roe v Wade decision and was a co-founder of NARAL- now called NARAL Pro- Choice ( of course!) America. In his autobiography “The Hand of God” , Nathanson says, “I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age”.
Mark- not Mark Thomas- maybe you and Fr. K. each ought to stand in front of a mirror and speak out loud, the kind of illogical nonsense you spew here. Actually hearing what’s coming out of your mouth, under the guise of intelligent utterances may just succeed in jarring your mind into rationality! This double- speak and sophistry is absolutely amazing! It takes a certain skill set to continue to insist that “up is down”, “good is evil”, “ ignorance is brilliance”!
Reminder- I don’t comment on this blog for just those who post here but especially for those who read it- lest some be led astray by your clever duplicity since they expect especially you Fr. K. - as a priest- to be giving them morally sound advice/example!
Sophia, you ignore what I posted. You ignore what the Church, not I, has said about proportionality. You use words like "double-talk" and "sophistry" or "relativism" without explaining how you think they apply to anything Mark or I have posted.
The Church's guidance, not yours, is morally sound.
Sophia,
I am afraid I must agree with Father Kavanaugh’s response to your last comment. I do not understand how advocating that Catholics conscientiously try to follow the Church’s guidance on voting puts us in the wrong. And to be clear, no one here is denying that abortion is a grave intrinsic evil, or indeed that it is the “preeminent” one of our times. So, I fail to see how the charge of relativism even applies. The question is not one of ends but of means—what is the best way to reduce or even eradicate this intrinsic evil, and what implications does this question have for voting where multiple considerations must inevitably be taken into account by the conscientious and prudent voter?
I know this is hard and that reasonable minds can disagree on this question of means. That is something the Church recognizes and surely why the USCCB gives us the guidance it does.
Have you read the USCCB document? If you have, do you disagree with it? Or do you think that we misunderstand it? I am trying to have a rational discussion here and get beyond the superficial labeling and name calling that is so symptomatic of the debased political conversation of our times.
Mark - What hasn't come up in this thread is the foundational point, the purpose for "Faithful Citizenship" - that the Church respects the conscience of the individual voter. "Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right" (CCC no. 1778).
Father Kavanaugh,
Thank you for making that point explicit. Consequently, in principle one voter can in good conscience vote for the Republican candidate who opposes a legal right to abortion, while another voter can in good conscience vote for the Democratic candidate who supports a legal right to abortion. But in each case, the Church teaches that the conscience can only be a “good” one when the voter follows the guidelines for forming it, as articulated in Faithful Citizenship? Have I understood correctly?
Post a Comment