The Democrat Party is known as the party of death as it supports the murder of babies and hiring hitmen to do it.
They are opposed to science and biology as they believe a man can choose to become a woman and the opposite too.
They are just fine with euthanasia.
They oppose peace in Gaza as the President is promoting it and they don’t want peace in Ukraine as Trump is spearheading it. They are the party of war, anti-semitism and whatever else that is holy and just.
They support same sex marriage as though God did not ordain it to be with one man and one woman and for a lifetime.
They are hysterical and deranged because of democracy and DonaldTurmp.
They aren’t your father’s or grandfather Democratic Party—they are the party of death and satan.
Catholics should face excommunication for supporting the good things of the party despite the abuse and killing of children, elderly and biology.
Poor Chuck Shummer. His party is trying to kill him as that is what his party does!
67 comments:
Ha, if only the mewling cowards at the USCCB would see it the way you do, the Church would recover.
One more comment. I have been following President Trump for over 40 years (unlike the simpleton "priest" who posts here) when I was a Democratic Party Official and Party loyalist. The first photograph I ever took was a picture of Bobby Kennedy when he was running for president, and I shook his hand. My Dad had dinner with Bobby and Ethel when he was running Bobby's campaign in a Midwestern State. I recall Ethel was banned from campaigning when she told women in Indianapolis, they were evil for practicing birth control. Take that, K.
Trump was an Icon in New York City, quite popular, being a guest on shows like The Nanny and a mention on Mama's Family, with a cameo appearance in Home Alone, and he was considered a great friend of the Black Community by Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton - until - he switched parties and became the Republican Party candidate for President. All of a sudden, he was evil! When the people calling him evil, are de facto, evil, which includes members of the "Catholic" hierarchy and priests and nuns, who should be begging for forgiveness in the Confessional. It is all about abortion and the Democrat Party's worship of killing the unborn which explains why they are desperate to import illegal aliens because Democrats are opting either not to have children (a braindead nephew of mine has been brainwashed not to bring children into the world to save the planet) or just killing them. K, you should be proud of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5PInhXkfvs&pp=ygUnT2xkIGJvYiBob3BlIHZpZGVvIGRlc2NyaWJlcyBkZW1vY3JhdHMg
“Catholics should face excommunication for supporting the good things of the party despite . . .”
Perhaps. My question is whether something similar could be said about the MAGA Republican Party. Please read the Party’s 2024 political platform with a very careful and critical eye and fill in the blanks after “despite” in the above quote as applied to MAGA Republicans:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform
Pay particular attention to what is NOT said as to what IS said. Note, for example, the following:
Chapter Eight, point 1:
“Republicans will promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents. We will end policies that punish families.”
How are “marriage” and “families” defined? What happened to the previous opposition to same-sex marriage?
Chapter Nine, point 4:
4. Republicans Will Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life
We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).
So, just opposition to late term abortions, not others, but in any event let the people decide (admittedly through passage of fetal personhood laws but also through very liberal abortion laws if the people so choose). It would also be nice to see some support for POST natal care, no? Or do MAGA Republicans, as many have alleged, care only about the UNBORN baby, but once born . . . good luck to baby and mom? But perhaps this is supposed to be addressed by the vague language in Chapter Eight, point 1 above. Who can tell? I believe Father Kavanaugh has addressed the issue of IVF treatments a couple of threads ago. One can add that the position supporting IVF seems incoherent with allowing states to pass fetal personhood laws.
Please understand, too, that this is just for starters. One poster here is very partial to posting tendentious scatter gun points, with highly biased links, showing how dreadful the Democratic Party is. He, and everyone else, should know that it would be very easy indeed to post similar points, with links, showing just how dreadful the Trump-Musk Presidency has been so far (with more promised), including, but certainly not only, on the issues of science, Gaza, and Ukraine (although the jury is still out on the latter two). The fact that this is not being done testifies not to the absence of abundant material but rather to the exercise of self-restraint.
Father McDonald has stated that he voted for an independent presidential candidate in the 2024 election. If only such a candidate with real prospects of being elected existed. Some of us have had it with both major parties and are minded to say “A pox on both their houses!”
Finally, as for citing books, Father McDonald cites a book from 2006. Here is a 2024 book on the Republican Party, which should also give Catholics pause, at least those of us who care about honesty and oppose lies, as I believe we all should:
https://www.amazon.com/Ministry-Truth-Democracy-Reality-Republicans/dp/0063393670/136-6005348-1412113?
Full disclosure: I have read neither book.
Mark J.
SuperTrump does it again. What did Biden do about this!
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-science/trump-details-plan-bring-stranded-nasa-astronauts-back-earth-bring-them-home-now
The Catholic Church also once condemned Galileo.
The Church teaches that all human life, including those conceived through IVF, is sacred and worthy of baptism. While the Church does not condone IVF as a method of conception, it recognizes that parents who have used IVF may still desire to raise their child in the Catholic faith.
Therefore, the Church will baptize an IVF baby if the parents meet the usual requirements for baptism, such as being Catholic or having a sincere desire to convert to Catholicism.
TJM - Are you "proud" of supporting Trump who is pushing for tax dollars to cover IVF, through which more human embryos are destroyed each year than in direct abortions?
Squirm on...
Hey K THIS will ruin your day. A corrupt anti-Trump judge exposed. All I can say is thank God for Loomer and Doge. I bet the Dem Party ends up getting prosecuted under RICO!!!
Put not your trust in princes -- in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.
Hey TJM - Did you see the stinging rebuke Chief Justice John Roberts delivered to Trump regarding the "anti-Trump" judges?
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” - Chief Justice John Roberts
Trump has already been whining about this - we can expect he'll call for Roberts' impeachment soon. Very Dangerous!
Is this what Donald Mercurial SuperTrump drives? Did Elon give it to him?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFXcirSidnY
K, to equate IVF with killing a living baby in the mother's womb shows that your powers of reasoning are almost non-existent. Think of all of the baptisms you did not perform because of your Party's bloodlust.
Roberts (another disappointing Bush appointment, I bet you LOVED Bush) is a loon and is actively harming the judiciary by not reining in these power mad judges who have ZERO right to interfere with the President's Article II powers. Should we send those terrorists to your rectory so you can feed and house the little dears? I would note that Roberts remained silent when Grifter Biden gave him the middle finger on the SC's student loan decisions, which tells me all one needs to know about Roberts. Roberts also remained silent when two Justices were targeted by the political Left. Unless Roberts reigns the loonies in, this will end badly for the judiciary, and may result in Congress abolishing the DC Circuit, which it has the power to do. You are going to have a four, sad years, because your evil, corrupt world is being dismantled!
Hey K, Mark Penn, Clinton Advisor, contradicts your magical thinking:
"I find it hard to believe that a district judge believed he is empowered to overrule the defense department and homeland security on matters related to national security on a preliminary basis with planes in the air.
These were migrants here illegally believed to be members of the most dangerous gangs being sent to their home countries where they could be properly adjudicated.
He could well have halted future flights or asked the DOJ to request the home countries to hold these migrants but ordering defense department flights in mid air in international airspace is incredible chutzpah that implies powers to mere district judges beyond anything that is reasonable. And it is rewarding forum shopping in the extreme. Find a judge anywhere in the US and they now have even international authority with instant orders.
The higher courts have to rein in these district court judges whose district they claim is now the entire world and adopt orderly systems of adjudication of urgent matters that includes supervision of these judges and requires at least circuit court approval of orders that go beyond their districts."
By the way, "Judge" Boasberg is corrupt and has conflicts up the ying-yang!
Hey K, more sad news for you. Unlike with Grifter Biden, Mexico is responding positively to President Trump's threats. Very sad day for you!
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-has-mexico-ropes
TJM says - "K, to equate IVF with killing a living baby in the mother's womb shows that your powers of reasoning are almost non-existent."
The Church says, "According to Donum Vitae: Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable “biological material”. In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman’s body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings."
There are many other authoritative Church teaching that show that TJM is wrong.
He is also wrong in saying that in supporting Trump he is not supporting the destruction of humans embryos. He is.
Thank you FRMJK, correctly calling TJM to task indicates that you now have repented of your votes for rabidly Democrat pro abortion candidates you have voted for, like Biden and Harris. I give thanks to God for your repentance! Kudos!
Poor K,
Here is what you support and here is what SuperTrump does not:
1) killing the baby as the baby comes down the birth canal - Trump does not
2)supporting child mutilation without parental consent - Trump does not
3)supporting mentally ill men in girl's sports and lockers - Trump does not
4) supporting illegal aliens who are unvetted into the US
many of whom commit murder and rape - Trump does not
5) Keeping the Ukraine War alive with no accountability
where US funds are being spent - Trump does not
6) Keeping mentally ill transgenders in the Military - Trump does not
7) Sheltering terrorists in the US - Trump does not
8) IVF therapy - Trump is being bi-partisan
You list of evils is WAY longer!
While Biden did nothing, Musk saved the astronauts and what fun it was to see the Dolphins greeting them like saying "Welcome back to Earth". Does that make you happy or do you prefer to meltdown in misery?
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - I see the fantasy in which you live is expanding....
K do you love being on the side of liars?
"A recent Daily Caller exclusive reveals that the Biden administration buried an inconvenient liquid natural gas (LNG) export study that would have removed the primary reason for that administration's LNG export ban.
The Biden administration deliberately buried a final draft version of a study that would have undermined its January 2024 decision to pause approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects, according to four Department of Energy (DOE) sources.
Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and former President Joe Biden announced the LNG freeze in January 2024, stating that it would remain in place until the DOE could conduct a fresh study of the climate and economic impacts of LNG export growth. The Biden DOE finalized a draft of the study in 2023 and subsequently buried it because the initial version’s findings would have contradicted the administration’s rationale for the LNG freeze, according to four sources inside the Trump DOE granted anonymity by the Daily Caller News Foundation to freely discuss a sensitive matter.
While the LNG freeze was inexplicable for many reasons - just to name one, natural gas as a fuel is much cleaner than coal or oil, which much of the world still uses for generation, home heating, and other uses - this hiding of a study that contradicted the Biden administration's reason for implementing this freeze is revealing. Like so much of what that feckless administration did, it wasn't about data; it was about the agenda, and climate change was among the reasons they cited to justify this ban."
Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you!
K and Father McDonald,
Grifter Joe Biden pardoned this guy. Arrested again! Dems know how to pick em!
https://1819news.com/news/item/dothan-man-arrested-again-weeks-after-biden-commuted-sentence
Although I have not followed the student loan forgiveness litigation in detail, and despite Biden’s characteristic foot in mouth statements, I tend to doubt the narrative on the right that the Biden Administration openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue. What I consider far more likely is that, once blocked by SCOTUS, the Biden administration then attempted to find ways to effectuate some sort of student loan relief that WOULD pass muster under the applicable legal standards, much like the first Trump Administration did over their so-called Muslim ban (third time was a charm). The following detailed timeline seems to bear this out:
https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/Biden_Administration_Debt_Relief_Timeline.pdf
Moreover, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that there was nary a peep from MAGA Republicans and their supporters when lone district court judges issued nationwide orders blocking Biden (and indeed Obama) administration measures, but when such judges act to block Trump administration measures, one cannot hear oneself think for their loud squealing. Now, whatever one’s views on the merits of the question whether a lone district court judge SHOULD possess such power, please TRY to be consistent and principled. In other words, stop playing politics and act like lawyers, or at least public-spirited citizens, wedded to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary!
And two cheers for Roberts! He is quite correct in what he says—if you don’t like the judge’s ruling, appeal it, do not call the judge “a left-wing radical” and call for his impeachment just because you don’t like the outcome. Tell us, did Obama or Biden ever do that (Schumer stepped over the line once and then walked it back the next day after being criticized by Roberts)?
I can assure you of this: Members of the legal profession will go to the barricades in defense of the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. Why? Because it is the only thing ultimately standing between us and tyrannical naked power politics. Are judges perfect? No, of course not. Are they sometimes, or even often, biased in various ways? Of course they are. But I honestly believe that MOST judges at least try to become self-aware and to combat their biases. And, as just intimated, the alternative is much, much worse. It’s great while YOU are on the winning side, not so much when the shoe is on the other foot, and YOU are not. Just ask anyone who has lived under a lawless, authoritarian and dictatorial regime—which, of course, invariably purports to act “in the name of the people.”
And so, for Trump and MAGA to complain that judges are thwarting “the will of the people” betrays such an ignorance of the basic theory of our Constitution that I don’t even know where to begin! Perhaps we can start by re-acquainting ourselves with Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 78:
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/alexander-hamilton-federalist-no-78-1788
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493470
Mark J.
And so, to the barricades we go:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-court-order-immigration-constitutional-crisis
https://societyfortheruleoflaw.org/
https://ldad.org/
By the way, Mike Cernovich’s statement, quoted in the Guardian article, is not just ignorant, it is pig ignorant! As I said in my previous comment, dictatorship always begins and is carried on in the name of “the people.”
Mark J.
Mark J,
Thanks for sharing. I have a vague recollection of this. Cheers!
Mark J,
Unfortunately, much of the "elite" legal profession (of which I was a member of) is corrupt, is more interested in pushing the "perversions du jour" of the political left, like abortion, DEI, transgenderism, LGBT, open borders, etc. than pursue justice. The judge who attempted to save those terrorists and return them to the US but whom the President of El Salvador graciously accepted, had NO authority for his actions. He was interfering with the President's Article II powers, and I believe the SC had ruled long ago, that such an action was non-reviewable. Moreover, we find out his daughter is an operative for an organization that shields illegal aliens. So, if one really believes in the "rule of law" he should have recused himself.
In terms of grifter Joe Biden he did attack the SC as the hapless "journalist" who defended him on national TV for not doing so, was outed by the internet:
https://x.com/TwitchyTeam/status/1902194438006296701
Democrats rant about the rule and law and saving "democracy" which really means, saving the democratic party and its bureaucracy in DC. Saving "democracy" by attempting through lawfare to keep President Trump off of the ballot in several States is not a good look. That is something that is done in Third World Countries, which now includes Europe.
Justice Roberts slamming President Trump is beneath the Court's dignity. Why didn't Roberts react to the Biden clip I just showed you? Why did he not denounce Chuck Schumer when he threatened two Supreme Court justices? Lastly, why do we still not know who leaked the ruling on reversing Roe v Wade? Roberts is playing to the increasingly depressed cocktail party circuit in DC but not to the American people who overwhelmingly support President Trump in closing down the borders, arresting and kicking out terrorists, shutting down DEI and transgenderism nonsense. So, spare me that twaddle about Roberts. He harmed the Court by weighing in on the President's comments. You may not believe this, but a majority of Americans have a low opinion of judges, just like they have a low opinion of the legal profession, sometimes with good reason.
Mark here is an article you should enjoy reading since it includes some lines from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons "which argues that President Trump, and not those rogue, leftwing judges, who is saving the Rule of Law:
https://thespectator.com/topic/trump-working-overtime-rule-law-judges/
These "judges" are playing with fire, since Congress has the power to not only abolish the DC Circuit but the entire federal judiciary below the Supreme Court. And speaking of the Supreme Court, before we get all maudlin over it, they have issued such wrongheaded decisions like Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade.
TJM - Such Squirming! You continue with your support for Trump and, therefore, support his push to make taxpayers pay for IVF, a procedure that destroys more human embryos than abortion. The heat is on you!
And how do you respond? you bring up Biden's children and NOW, liquified natural gas!
What's next? Blaming Saul Alinsky for the Teapot Dome scandal? Or George Soros for Watergate?
If your squirming weren't so sad, I'd laugh...
Mark J,
The Guardian? LOL, the most leftwing paper in England. Luttig? LOL, he is a George Bush loyalist, who shills for them. They hate Trump because he has made the Bush family irrelevant and has exposed their incompetence. Are you a neoconservative who loves all of the Bush Wars?
It is hard to go to the barricades literally or figurately when you have nothing to back you up other than feelings.
Another article for your consideration:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/trump-may-have-to-save-the-constitution-from-the-courts/
When is England going to stop trampling the rights of its citizens while protecting the third world savages? What is the Guardian saying about that?
FRMJK, It must be reassuring to TJM that you would no longer vote for a candidate(s) who support the murder of children. Thank you for seeing the light through your own repentance and for showing TJM the immorality of voting for anyone who supports the destruction of babies! Kudos!
Another example of the intellectual heft of the Dem Party:
Failed vice-presidential candidate and Minnesota’s dimwitted Governor Tim Walz (D) took the stage in Wisconsin this week and proudly gloated about Tesla stock dropping, taking a petty swipe at CEO Elon Musk.
But in his smug attempt to score political points, Walz conveniently forgot one major detail—Minnesota’s state pension funds hold nearly 2 million shares of Tesla stock, totaling a whopping $361.5 million in assets.
At an event Tuesday, Walz gleefully told the crowd how he enjoys watching Tesla stock drop on his iPhone.
Theologian Joe Biden weighs in on IVF:
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Feb 29, 2024 / 16:35 pm (CNA).
President Joe Biden expressed today his disagreement with the Catholic Church’s position that in vitro fertilization (IVF) is immoral because it kills countless unborn human babies.
As the controversy continues after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling established the personhood of unborn babies conceived through IVF, Biden was asked by EWTN White House correspondent Owen Jensen on Thursday what he thought about the Church’s position on the issue.
“The Catholic Church says IVF is immoral and wrong because it destroys countless human embryos. What do you say to that?” Jensen asked.
“I don’t agree with that position,” Biden responded before walking away."
LOL - this may be one instance in which I agree with the old guy.
First of all, let's refresh our resident clergy's recollection on the success of Humanae Vitae. It was a monumental flop because it denies the reality of marital love and human relations. Of course, in the Church's view (and mine) all Catholic couples must be open to having children, that is a fundamental to the basis for Christian marriage. However, that each and every marital act must be open to the wife becoming pregnant is absurd. A healthy woman in the US could easily have 20-25 children during her fertile years. Paul VI, sua sponte, rejected the advice of his own hand-picked commission. Humanae Vitae is dead letter because the overwhelming number of even practicing Catholics have rejected it. The premise that every Christian marriage needs to be open to having children is the direction this papal document should have taken instead of micromanaging the most intimate part of a Catholic couple's life. I doubt either priest who posts here has ever gotten up in a pulpit demanding that people follow Humanae Vitae to the letter.
Now on to IVF. The intention is to create life, not destroy life like abortion does. I view that as a very critical difference. People desiring their own children should be praised, not vilified. The Church acknowledges medical interventions in other aspects of our lives, such as treating cancer, heart disease, etc. I guess a purist position would be that since those actions interfere with nature, those should be sinful as well. The Church at one time condemned Galileo.
TJM:
Thank you for posting the Biden clip. There is nothing wrong in saying one disagrees with a SCOTUS ruling and that one will find another way. My previous comment already referred to Biden’s remarks (foot in mouth Biden) and his efforts to find an alternative strategy that would pass muster under the applicable legal standards, but tell me: In that clip, or indeed anywhere else), did Biden call SCOTUS “right wing radical lunatics” or call for their impeachment? No, I didn’t think so.
Again, Roberts DID react to Chuck Schumer. Please re-read my previous comment and the following link.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/chief-justice-roberts-chides-schumer-for-dangerous-remarks-on-2-justices
And I agree, we still don’t know who leaked the draft Dobbs ruling. One of Alito’s law clerks perhaps?
Thank you for the link to the Kimball article. As you might suspect, I disagree with him profoundly. Indeed, I almost quoted that passage from Man for All Seasons to YOU yesterday because, to me, it is Trump who seeks to evade the rule of law to get at the “devil” he has conjured up. Moreover, Kimball is completely wrong about the Muslim ban. Thank goodness, the district court(s) stopped it because it took three attempts for Trump’s clowns to get it right. Or had you forgotten that? There should be no objection to “[t]he Trump administration’s efforts to restore fiscal sanity, accountability and common sense to the workings of government,” as Kimball would have it. Just do it in a legal and constitutional manner!
Anyway, why argue about this? Just do what Roberts suggests, follow the appeal process, and SCOTUS will doubtless rule for Trump on many of these issues anyway.
And no, the President doesn’t get to decide the extent of his (or her) own power. Federalist Paper No 78: It is the task of the federal courts to say what the law is (including what the law of Article II is), not the task of the President or the Congress or “the people.” But if they back down because of fear of what Congress might do (your “playing with fire” point), then they pave the way for tyranny. THAT is what is done in third world banana republics, not trying to hold public officials accountable for egregious violations of the law (willful refusal to return classified documents despite repeated requests; incitement of a riot at the Capitol and failure to act to stop it immediately, and so on) or to keep their actions within the confines of the law.
Finally, you did not respond to my point about rampant hypocrisy. So, one is left with the suspicion that you and MAGA just don’t like it when the courts rule against your guy but are perfectly fine with it when they rule against the other guy and that all this pretzel twisting argument is a smokescreen to justify blatantly partisan political positions! Well, my friend, that’s too bad! Be a man and suck it up and stop squealing like girlie man Donald.
Mark J.
TJM:
Sorry, but you are wrong. A good end (even the creation of a new life) does not justify an evil means. In other words, at least as I understand it (and our resident priests will surely correct me if I am wrong), the direct killing of an embryo is never justified under Catholic teaching, even though the indirect killing of an embryo or fetus might be excusable under the doctrine of double effect. So, here again, we see your willingness to bend Catholic teaching in favor of your guy but not in favor of the other guy! Be honest, if the Democrats alone were promoting IVF, and Trump and MAGA opposed it, would you still make the same argument? I think we know the answer to that.
Mark J.
SuperTrump is bringing jobs to North Carolina from Totalitarian Canada. K, don’t commit suicide over Americans getting jobs instead of Canadians!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/20/report-canadian-furniture-maker-moves-production-north-carolina-after-trumps-tariff-threats/
It seems that perhaps the post hoc propter hoc fallacy strikes again!
See: https://www.furnituretoday.com/tariffs/furniture-manufacturer-shuts-down-canadian-operations-moves-production-to-n-carolina/
“According to Unifor, the union that represents Prepac’s workers, tariffs are to blame. More than 170 workers will be laid off.
‘Our union has been warning about lost investment and production since Trump began his economic war on Canada and Canadian workers,’ said Unifor National President Lana Payne. ‘In this case, Prepac and its equity owners are using the tariffs as an excuse to redirect all their production to the U.S. It’s pure greed.’
Prepac has not confirmed that the closure and production shift were done as a response to tariffs or the trade war, nor as it returned a request for comment to Furniture Today. Company CEO Nick Bozikis told publications The Daily Hive and Business Intelligence for B.C. that the decision ‘was the product of many months of consideration and analysis, and began long before any tariff risks to Prepac’s business arose.’
He said that the past several years have been challenging for many North American furniture manufacturers, that the Delta closure ‘is a necessary step that reflects the realities of Prepac today,’ and that the company’s North Carolina facility is located closer to its largest customer base.
Prepac was founded in Canada 45 years ago and locally owned until it was acquired by Canadian private equity firm TorQuest in 2019. The company invested $27 million to build its 260,000-square-foot facility in Whitsett, N.C., in 2021, a move that added 200 jobs.”
Mark J.
Looks like Chief Justice Roberts is looking to go to Gitmo with this group of leftwing slugs!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/revealed-chief-justice-john-roberts-caught-secretive-invite/
Not a good luck.
Hey K,
Another Dem crook. You must be proud!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/cori-bushs-husband-charged-wire-fraud-related-covid/
Mark J,
We are going to have to agree to disagree. You want an omnipotent, corrupt judiciary that acts as a super legislature, I do not. Judge Boasberg has ZERO authority to do what he is doing and should be disbarred. His actions are contrary to the express wishes of the American people. Maybe Trump should threaten to pack the Supreme Court with his people. How about that? Your side was pushing for it, but I suspect they thought they would remain in power forever. Here is an opinion which sums up where things are at.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/19/opinion/trump-fighting-cartel-of-far-left-judges-trying-to-kill-campaign-promises/
If the SC caves to these judges, I fully expect legislators, and the executive branch to simply ignore their edicts or work to abolish the federal judiciary below the SC level. The American people will not stand for dictators in black robes to push their leftwing ideologies on foreign policy, the military, nor allow bloated and venal bureaucracies to enjoy permanent employment while those of us in the real world are "employees at will."
TJM:
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. The problem with that, though, is that it is unclear what we are disagreeing about.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but, as I see it, you simply do not accept that the federal judiciary (including SCOTUS with several hand-picked Trump judges) is EVER justified in stopping Trump from doing ANYTHING on the grounds that it is unlawful /unconstitutional. And this is because it would impede his so-called “mandate” from the people in the 2024 election. According to that logic, if the people had voted to incarcerate all Jews (or worse), the courts would not be justified in ruling against it. This is NOT the theory of our Constitution. Again, Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78 says:
“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
So, yes, the President is responsible for the “administration of the laws.” But it is up to the judiciary to make sure he does that in a legal and constitutional manner. Authoritarians and dictators ALWAYS begin their coup by attacking the legal profession and the judiciary. Trump is no different. He doesn’t want a republic; he wants a monarchy in which he is King. So, to the extent he is trying to rule like a despotic prince, as Hamilton says, the judiciary “are an excellent barrier” to such an attempt, thank God!
The solution is simple: Follow the time-honored process—appeal if you don’t like the ruling.
Anyway, as I said, the hypocrisy is rampant—it’s okay for judges to stop Biden and Obama, just not Trump. And that cited New York Post article not only propagates misinformation; it is disgusting!
And just try to abolish the lower federal judiciary, and you will see a real revolution, I can promise you.
By the way, please stop saying “my side.” I am on no-one’s side. A pox on both their houses. But I AM on the side of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. You should be ashamed that you are not. You betray your former profession and your oath.
Mark J.
This article is not only disgusting; it is despicable!
It is a blatant attempt to smear judges and lawyers of the highest integrity and ethics and is clearly part of the continued concerted attack on the legal profession, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. Now I am not just disgusted; I am very angry.
I am not a member of an American Inn of Court, but I am a member of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. All barristers must join one of the four Inns of Court in London—Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Grays Inn, of Lincoln’s Inn.
The author calls the named members of one American Inn “not good people” and “wicked.” Notice the emphasis of the American Inns of Court organization on “the highest level of professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence.” THAT is what is “wicked” and anathema to the author. How DARE he? And how dare YOU post such abject drivel?
Mark J.
Mark J,
These "judges" are the ones betraying the profession and their oaths. They are meddling in policy matters, trying to maintain the Biden agenda. Have you actually read about Judge Reyes (a lesbian) screaming in the Court Room about her absolutely nonsensical gender beliefs and questioning a DOJ lawyer about their religious beliefs? And Boasberg ordering planes containing terrorists and criminals back to the US? National security is in the province of the Executive branch, not the judiciary, last time I read the US Constitution. Chuck Schumer actually let the cat out of the bag when he publicly stated we placed all of those "progressive" judges to stop President Trump's agenda. Well since abolishing the lower judiciary is a matter for Congress to decide, I hope you are not suggesting an insurrection. Judges are supposed to be referees, not policy makers nor rulers. Justice Roberts is the problem, not President Trump who is exercising the powers granted the executive under the US Constitution.
Here is a pretty good article showing the duplicity that is Justice Roberts:
https://www.newsmax.com/joshhammer/john-roberts-supreme-court/2025/03/21/id/1203795/
TJM:
Well, at least Josh Hammer’s article is intelligent and coherent, but then he is a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law so I would expect no less. Nevertheless, I disagree with him on several points.
First, I agree with Hammer that Roberts is concerned with the “institutional integrity” of the Supreme Court. But that is no sin because if the people lose their trust in the “umpire” calling the balls and strikes, then the game can no longer be played. As Chief Justice, then, Roberts HAS to be concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court. And the Supreme Court is in a unique position compared with all other federal courts given that the legal buck stops with it. So, if IT loses perceived legitimacy, this affects the entire federal judicial system. Hammer seems unaware of the irony that the unstated premise of his own criticism of the lower federal courts ruling against Trump is precisely that they are thereby demonstrating a lack of “institutional integrity.” However, as he is very intelligent, he probably is aware of it, but it wouldn’t serve his argument to mention the point and would only undermine his criticism of Roberts.
Second, yes, federal judges have been impeached in the past, but never, as I understand it, for the sorts of reasons that Trump, Musk, and others now want to impeach them. And in addition to the written Constitution and its judicial interpretation, there are also “constitutional traditions” that have been established. But the Trump crowd cares very little for such traditions and norms.
Third, it is Hammer who needs a remedial lesson or two. Yes, the courts are very deferential to the political branches in the area of immigration. BUT it is long-standing jurisprudence that those in the interior of the country who have already “entered,” as opposed to those attempting initial entry, are entitled to procedural due process protections under the Constitution when the government attempts to deport them. Now, perhaps there is an argument that these protections don’t apply when deportations are under the Enemy Aliens Act, but it is for the courts to determine whether that Act is properly invoked, just as it is for the courts to say what the law is in any other case.
Finally, I think I may have figured out what Trump is doing in his feral cunning way. Perhaps he is taking so many actions all at once that either flout the law and the Constitution, or at least skirt so very close to the edge, in a deliberate attempt to produce lawsuits and adverse lower court preliminary rulings, precisely so he can then create the narrative about rogue judges currently taking shape on the right and supported by useful idiots (or worse), and thereby remove the ultimate guardrail preventing the political coup he seeks. Now you might think I am engaging in a conspiracy theory here; but never forget that John Kelly and others who know Trump well stated before the election that he is essentially a fascist. And fascists ALWAYS attack the legal profession, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, because once these are dismantled, they then have a free hand. Perhaps you are okay with that; I am not. It is why I voted for Harris, and the more I see, the more I feel vindicated in my vote.
Mark J.
Mark J. - Thanks for the references to the Federalist Papers. I have used them in my communications with the representative of the 1st District of Georgia. He's as deep a Trump cultist as they come, even to the point of sponsoring a bill in Congress to acquire and re-name is "Red, White, and Blueland." You've probably heard of this.
BUT.... he needs to know how many of us who are very concerned about the slide toward fascism that is taking place. I have a feeling that this is not going to end well.
Yes! Stupid Democrats know it will not end up well for them at the midterms and next presidential election. In desperation they use insulting name calling, beginning with all the phobia terms then graduating to dictator, nazi, fascist. You are late because the new term is oligarchy! So silly and so stupid. Snd the violence of you democrats burning down cities and using political terroristic tactics against Musk and innocent Tesla cars, dealerships and owners. Democrats need to take a long hard look in the mirror before calling others the disgusting names they use!
Father McDonald,
With respect, you are missing the point. When Democrats call Trump a fascist, I pay little attention because I am opposed to superficial labeling. But when John Kelly, a conservative and Trump’s former Chief of Staff, calls him a fascist, I pay attention. So should you!:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/trump-fascist-john-kelly/index.html
Kelly used the following definition of fascism:
“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” Kelly said. “So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.”
Sound familiar? It should. We are living it right now. And it is not inconsistent with (mostly) billionaire oligarchs running the country. How can you (and others) be so blind?
And the ONLY thing that will stop our slide into full-blown fascism are the legal profession, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary—which, of course, is why Trump attacks them and wants to take them down.
Let me ask you this: Which would you prefer—the courts deciding what the law is and applying it or Trump alone deciding what the law is? We have another name for that too—despotic monarchy or autocracy. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves, having given their blood, sweat, and tears for THIS?
Mark J.
Father Kavanaugh:
I am glad the Federalist Paper reference was helpful. I share your worry that this may not end well. But in this Jubilee Year of Hope, I am trying to remain at least cautiously optimistic that the legal guardrails will hold. However, for the best chance of that, we must all do our part. Thank you for your efforts with your representative.
Mark J.
TJM:
Trump and his allies call Judge Boasberg “a rogue judge.” Please read the following Tangle analysis by Isaac Saul, with which I completely agree:
https://www.readtangle.com/trump-el-salvador-and-the-alien-enemies-act/?ref=tangle-newsletter
And then let me ask you this: Was Judge Boasberg “a rogue judge” when he “ruled against the interests of the left repeatedly”?:
“Lastly, remember that the case still hasn’t been tried in court — Boasberg has only blocked the deportations under the AEA while the court considers it. And, (as McCarthy also says), Boasberg is not some leftist judge. He’s ruled against the interests of the left repeatedly, including decisions to release nearly 15,000 emails belonging to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to reject an effort to force Trump to release his tax returns.”
No, I didn’t think so. It is only when he rules against the interests or Trump and MAGA that he becomes a rogue judge. The real problem is not rogue judges; it is a rogue presidency!
Mark J
Mark J,
John Kelly? Lol. You may want to peruse this article in which Mulvaney takes Kelly to task:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4527904-mulvaney-rips-outrageous-kelly-remarks-on-trump/amp/
Kelly is not exactly a disinteresed Party. He and Trump had a falling out.
Boasberg will get reversed because his ruling is ultra vires and demonstrates a blatant disregard for separation of powers. The president is responsible for our safety and it is beyond arrogance that a sole district court judge would engage in this reckless sort of behavior.
Remember, the judiciary is a co-equal, not superior branch of our governance. A judge has no more right to second guess national security, than a president has a right to tell a judge whom the judge may hire or fire. As I do not worship the congress nor executive branch you should not be worshipping the judiciary.
Everyone should read this very helpful and sobering conversation about how close we are to a full-blown constitutional crisis. We are very close to the line that would take us there if Trump crosses it:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/20/trump-defy-courts-judge-interview-00239359?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
Mark J.
This is a good analysis from a law professor who isn’t a cheerleader for corrupt judges.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/opinion/how-federal-judges-trump-hate-is-harming-the-courts/
TJM:
I was curious why you haven’t mentioned your go-to legal commentator Jonathan Turley in connection with these attacks on the federal judiciary, so I have just done a bit of research. I suspect I now know why—it wouldn’t support your position but would undermine it:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/16/no-the-house-should-not-impeach-judge-boasberg-over-his-tren-de-aragua-tro/
But as you regularly cite Turley as an almost infallible authority, I guess you will now have to change your position, no?
Mark J.
Oh dear, it gets even better in the first post linked in the Turley piece, with even broader criticism of actions taken by Trump (combined with some muted support of his purported exercise of Article II authority):
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/25/no-the-gop-should-not-impeach-federal-judges-over-the-trump-challenges/
My guess is that Turley won’t be invited to Mar-a-Lago dinner parties any time soon. Reading between the lines, it seems that Turley is at least beginning to see the mortal danger to our constitutional republic that Trump and his MAGA allies represent.
Mark J.
It is a sober, well reasoned commentary based on law as Turkey understands it. He is not “chicken little” screaming with his hair on fire that the sky is falling unlike FRMJK and other democrats who are “Chicken Littles” in the political sense. Turley calls no one phobic in any way, nor does he use terms like monarch, king, dictator, Nazi, Fascist or any other such silly Chicken Little name calling. It is also sophomoric to do so. Democrats currently are the greatest threat by inspiring violence in communities and against political opponents.
Mark J,
Well Turley started out with lambasting Democrats which was entertaining and so there is that. He has his opinion and I have mine. Boasberg should enjoy the process of being impeached as much as President Trump enjoyed the process of lawfare he was put through by Merchan in NY (a case Turley and others have roundly criticized). Why should judges be immune from this when they are willing participant’s in those types of bad faith litigation which were purely political in nature as is impeachment. At least impeachment is a Constitutional remedy even though both of Trump’s impeachments were bogus unlike Horndog Cluntoon’s. Boasberg interefered not with an Article III matter but clearly an Article II matter. I am shocked you do not acknowledge that difference because Turley does.
Ps: Politico is a Democrat mouthpiece just as The Guardian is a leftwing rag
Mark J,
A non lawyer wrote this, but he cuts to the chase and makes better arguments that it is Boasberg, not President Trump, who is harming democracy and the rule of law.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/disobedience-to-judges-is-obedience-to-the-constitution/
Judges doing their job is how democracy works.
Complaining that judges doing their job are threats to democracy when their decisions are against you or not to your liking and them threatening impeachment of said judges is how fascism works.
I forgot you are an expert in all fields. I will mention to Judge Boasberg you want to take a few terrorists in to house and feed. Read Article II of the US Constitution and you will know this judge blew it bigtime
Your take on Fascism, which of course is Chicken Little exaggeration, can be applied to current day democrats in high places: often used informally in an exaggerated way:
Like the city's ban on the use of trans fats and draconian restrictions on smoking, the new soda regulations are, the green new deal, banning gas cars etc,… yet another installment of what Jonah Goldberg rightly termed "liberal fascism."
—Jonathan S. Tobin
TJM - I'll leave to a highly educated, totally East Coast Elite judge (Harvard undergrad and law school), constitutional expert (unless you think you're better at it than he is) to tell you:
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
And btw, that east coast elitist is Chief Justice John Roberts.
Also, by supporting Trump, you support his push for IVF and the destruction of more human embryos through that procedure than in direct abortion.
TJM:
No, Boasberg didn’t blow it big time, as Turley makes perfectly clear. Boasberg’s duty is to do what federal judges are supposed to do—say what the law is and the apply it to the facts. Specifically, to say whether what the Trump administration did falls properly within the executive’s Article II powers and, as part of that inquiry, the proper interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg may well rule in favor of Trump when he considers the merits, but he must be given the opportunity to do that because that is what our constitutional norms and values require. And if he rules against Trump, well, that is what the appeal process is for, as Roberts correctly points out in his well-taken rebuke of Trump. Which part of this legal process 101 do you not understand?
And so, I ask again the question I asked Father McDonald: Which would you prefer—the courts deciding what the law is and applying it to Trump or Trump alone deciding what the law is and applying it to himself? Whatever YOUR answer might be, it is clear what Trump’s answer is because he has said in effect “I am the law.” On the other hand, Trump SAYS he will not defy any court decisions, as those such as Vance have urged him to do. We will see.
As to your points about Politico and The Guardian, so what? Are you denying that Trump did or said what they say? If not, who cares which source reports it? It is fine to disagree with mere opinion in such sources, but it is not fine to ignore the facts (subject to their proper contextualization). So, are you denying the following, as reported in The Guardian (and many other sources too):
“Trump, 78, has declared ‘We are the federal law’ and posted a social media image of himself wearing a crown with the words ‘Long live the king’. He also channeled Napoleon with the words: ‘He who saves his country does not violate any law.’ And JD Vance has stated that ‘judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power’.”
Again, regarding Vance’s weasel words quoted above: Yes, of course, but someone must determine whether the purported exercise of the executive’s power IS legitimate. And who might that be? The judiciary, of course, because if it is the executive itself, we have despotism.
And naturally Mulvaney defended Trump and smeared Kelly. What else would one expect from a good little foot soldier taking orders from “the boss”?
And what about the allegations about Trump in the following CNN report? All lies? When so many people who were close to Trump report such matters, at some point one is compelled to conclude the problem lies with the person they are reporting on, not all those doing the reporting:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans/index.html
Anyway, we are currently living through the current chaos and the incompetence unleashed by this administration, however much Trump and MAGA allies try to gaslight us into not believing “our lying eyes.” Here is just the latest example:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-journalist-cabinet-signal-chat/index.html
Or is that all lies from the “fake media” too?
Mark J.
According to the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently included in the Signal chat:
“The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”
Of course, Trump says there was “nothing important” in the chat and the White House Press Secretary said that “No ‘war plans’ were discussed.”
So, I guess “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” aren’t "important" or “war plans.” Because if they are, someone must be lying. Now, I wonder who that could be—oh, yes, of course, it must be Goldberg because the other guy never tells a lie, does he?
What does any of this have to do with our faith? Everything—because honesty and truth, taking responsibility, and being accountable matter spiritually.
Mark J.
Mark J,
You are starting to amuse me. Just like a Pavlovian experiment you reflexively go for the shiny new object the Left puts out. Is this part of the much vaunted "diversity" we keep hearing about in Academia? There is much less to this story then you and your fellow travelers are hoping for. If the word Trump is anywhere near a subject, you always presume the worst. Here is an article you might wish to consider:
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/03/26/never-ever-ever-trust-a-breaking-news-story-that-makes-trumpworld-look-bad-n3801148
So, Goldberg was lying? I think not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
And if the Biden Administration had done this, you would be okay with it too?
I think not.
Mark J.
Here is more evidence of all the Trump administration lies about the Signal chat:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/26/signal-texts-undermine-trump-officials/?utm
And please don’t attack the source; deal with the facts reported in the source.
Mark J.
You cite all leftwing spin machines, the same ones who said Trump wasn't being spied upon during his first campaign by the government, that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian "disinformation, which just yesterday, in a Congressional Hearing PBS and NPR mouthpieces admitted they should have reported upon in a desperate attempt to stay on the public teat. Sources are important, that is why Josef Goebbels would be proud of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, etc. At the end of the day, we likely will find the Signal chat (which the Atlantic previously said was the Gold Standard) is just another Deep State operation by a bunch of desperate bureaucrats (aka the perpetuals) trying to maintain their "jobs." Bureaucracy delenda est. You are on the 20% side of an 80/20% issue. Just like the looney judges who may find their Circuit abolished by Constitutional means.
Mark J,
Mark Penn, a Clinton adviser, gives the Signal chat “scandal” a 90% chance of being a deep state caper! Things are look even more suspicious that the lady running NPR is Chair of the Signal Chat board! Bureaucracy delenda est!
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/27/does-this-shocking-revelation-prove-a-conspiracy-in-signalgate-controversy-n4938336
So, true to form, you DO attack the source rather than dealing with the facts reported in the source (other than parroting the latest conspiracy theory being peddled by the Trump administration).
Why on earth couldn’t the administration just admit the mistake of using Signal and adding Goldberg, apologize, say that it won’t happen again, and move on? Instead, they give the story legs it didn’t need to have. Why? Because Trump can NEVER admit a mistake or allow his minions to do so (unless he has decided to throw one under the bus). I have never in all my almost 72 years on this earth seen a more insecure person!
Mark J.
The link you give mentions nothing about Mark Penn, and the author also eschews conspiracy theories, despite all the smoke he creates, opining that “I still believe a rogue staffer is the most likely culprit” (without, however, detailing just exactly what the “rogue staffer” is supposed to have done).
Mark J.
Post a Comment