Wasn't this all put to bed with JFK in 1960?!
Wasn't this all put to bed with JFK in 1960?!
NYT: Maybe A Little Racism Is A Good Thing When It Comes To (some conservative).
NYT: Maybe A Little Misogyny Is A Good Thing When It Comes To (some conservative).
NYT: Maybe A Little Fascism Is A Good Thing When It Comes To (some conservative).
NYT: Maybe A Little Nazism Is A Good Thing When It Comes To (some conservative).
The NYT commits acts of violence with their words.
Thought Nazi Pelosi was Catholic.
The more they trash her the more eyes will open.
NYT: Maybe A Little Anti-Semitism Is A Good Thing When It Comes To Ginsburg
NYT is the Left’s Ministry Of Propaganda. Nothing more.
I tweeted this out to let everyone know how ‘wonderful’ the NY slimes is.
In 1960 there were a lot of Protestants who did not like Kennedy’s Catholic faith. But times have changed. It is now atheists, secular Jews, and Rainbow Protestants (former mainline Episcopalians/Presbyterians/Methodists) who attack Barrett’s faith. These are groups who believe in Gaia not in God.
No surprise, I doubt Catholicism is even a remote % of NYT employee religion.
It IS NYC after all.
But don’t you dare bring up Biden’s faith, that is a doggy no no
When Ginsberg died, I figured that Trump would not be able to get 50 Republicans away from campaigning to get embroiled in a Senate confirmation. It is only in seeing how this is playing out that I see how brilliant it is to have it now instead of after the election. For starters, Joe Biden’s strategy completely relies on getting votes from non-serious Catholics in rust belt states. Even non-serious, old style liberals, and many ex-Catholics don’t get too excited about abortion.
Trump is changing the field of play, and he can go on being Trump. The campaign operatives for Biden, and also for Democrats who want to be perceived as reasonable, are going to be forced to pick a side by the crazies who will be dominating the airwaves with allegations that Judge Barrett is evil because she has seven children, adopted two from Haiti and belongs to a charismatic church group.
This time they won’t even have the option of coming up with middle aged women to claim they were assaulted by the nominee. No. This time the Democrats have to pick on the girl. Unlike Harriet Miers, this girl is extremely competent.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that 8 of the 9 women on Trump’s list had shoulder length or longer hair, and the three women on the court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg) would never show long hair? My not as political Canadian wife suggests they are not will to demonstrate their femininity as much. (I’ll give Ginsburg a pass because the long hair thing doesn’t work as well when you are that old.)
I don’t mind at all that Dims are going down this rabbit hole.
Especially since ACB would be the 6th Catholic on the court.
Folks would probably want to take a look around if it was 6 Mormons, or 6 Baptists or 6 Jews...of 9 total votes.
What makes 6 Catholics exempt?
There is either something there that will convince 3 more senators to vote nay, or there is not. But I don’t mind them asking the questions.
This fishwrap wouldn’t dare attack the religion of a rag head if nominated to SC
Why in heaven’s name, doesn’t the senate just confirm that lady on Monday morning and put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Why give the democrats and their media syncophants a month to “Kavanaugh” this decent human being. This demonizing and the slander to come serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
What a disgrace the NYT has become, though I suppose it always has been.
That's all ya got, huh?
In other words, White Catholics are no longer considered an oppressed group, so it is open season to slander their faith.
So being Catholic is incapable with America, according to the Old Pinko Lady. I hope all of the Senate Demon-crats take the Time's advise to heart. They would reveal the hatred and bigotry that lies in all of their hearts.
“NYT: Maybe A Little Anti-Catholicism Is A Good Thing When It Comes To Barrett”
Except that it’s explicitly unconstitutional.
I’m reposing what someone else said...
The entire SCOTUS nomination process where the Senate’s “advice and consent” role has become “search and destroy” the character of the “wrong party’s” nominee.
NYT has no integrity.
Religious Test