Religious affiliation now a disqualifier for public service according to Democrats?

So say Leftists, to include Diane Feinstein.


Dianne Feinstein Interrogates Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith

by Joel B Pollak

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether the Catholic faith of a judicial nominee would disqualify her from carrying out the duties of her intended office.

Stop. My first thought? President John F Kennedy. A Democrat. Back in 1961. Have we not progressed from there? Or have we regressed? Not A, but B.

Feinstein told Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Let’s listen to Diane Feinstein.

Now let’s listen to Dick Durbin.

Furthermore, Demorats ask: “can a Catholic be a judge?” A far cry from a Catholic president, is it not? Back in 1961? Back then: “a Catholic will ruin our nation.”

Perhaps we should next rightly ask: can a Muslim be a member of Congress? If not a Christian, then why a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a Shinto priest? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, go away. Right? Because they are “religious.”

Or is this a Constitutional issue the likes of which persons such as Diane Feinstein don’t comprehend as illustrated by her discourse with the late Antonin Scalia?

Gorsuch also happened to school Diane Feinstein during hearings.

Are you, like me, beginning to question the validity and veracity of Diane Feinstein with regard to overall competence? If not, you certainly should. We continue.

Feinstein was referring to abortion, though her question was based on a law review article written by Barrett in 1998 that argued that Catholic judges who object to the death penalty should recuse themselves from cases in which it is a possible sentence because “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice.”

But wait. There’s more.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” yet Feinstein and other Democrats on the panel effectively imposed a religious test on Barrett. It was the second time in recent months that the opposition had attempted to do so: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked Russell Vought, nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, about his Christian belief that salvation comes only through Jesus, as if that would be disqualifying.

Bottom line — the one that the American Media Maggots fail to report?

Barrett stated, “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on my duties as a judge.”

There was a bit of pushback, from

Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee

by Josh Gerstein

At least two prominent university presidents are accusing senators of religious bias for challenging a Catholic judicial nominee over her faith-driven views during a confirmation hearing last week.

University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber both wrote letters objecting to lawmakers’ pointed questions on the topic to Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett last week, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Jenkins wrote directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, taking issue with her statements that Barrett’s worldview seems strongly driven by “dogma.”

“Your concern, as you expressed it, is that ‘dogma lives loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country,'” Jenkins wrote. “I am one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly,’ as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation. Indeed, it lived loudly in the hearts of those who founded our nation as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology.”

Look, this is truly nothing new in terms of today’s Demorats. Religion, with the exception of Islam, means nothing. Perhaps less than nothing, rolling over to subjugation and oppression.

If only Leftists would focus their critical eyes inwards.

Demorats fear the law. They only wish new interpretations and not decisions based but upon precedent.



Note to Pope Francis

How about you simply do your job and keep your nose out of other affairs?

Because the more you open your mouth, the more you prove yourself an imbecile.


Pope Francis: ‘Muslim Terrorism Does Not Exist’

by Thomas D. Williams, PH.D.

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.

What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.

“No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent,” Francis said, while also suggesting—as he has on other occasions—that terrorism is primarily a result of economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”

I could continue, but it only becomes more embarrassing.

A little suggestion, Pope Francis, in hopes of minimizing your Dolt Factor. You stick to your reality, and we’ll stick to ours. Let’s not have you mixing the two because, truly, it’s not going well for you.



The politics of God

My Christ NecklaceI asked before, back in my January 2010 post:

Where do you hold God?  Church or heart?

My answer back then was clearly: in my heart.

This issue has arisen again recently because of a narrow ruling that Hugh Hewitt revealed indicating a crescendo of criticism involving religion.  His very important Washington Examiner article is here.  He writes about anti-Semitism and the Presbyterian Church of the USA.

Where, once again, man show the rude side of the politics of God.

So that made me think again: where do I come down with regard to the politics of God involving man?

As I wrote in my January 2010 post:

I very rarely speak or write about my religion or my beliefs. I’m of the opinion that my relationship with God primarily involves myself and my Lord. Individually, I’m not a “joiner” per se; my life doesn’t quite revolve around the approval of other humans and it never has. I tend to be a loner by nature and my friends — well, I’m not quite sure that I really have even one very close external friend at this point in my life. I have many acquaintances; that is true. I’d have to say my wife is my best close friend, amongst other roles.

I don’t believe in man, but I believe in God.  I don’t need the trappings of a church to hold God close.  I don’t require the approval of many people in a group to try to be a better man.  And I see, day after day, the fallibility of man and the supremacy of God.  I don’t hold the bible as the ultimate word of God because the bible is rife with the base motivations of man, to include greed, envy, pride, power, and the politics of a few thousand years ago.  The bible was vetted by the Council of Nicea and, as with any gathering of men, there were the political ramifications of what got into the bible and what was excluded.  And that does not even factor in the sometimes very poor historical memory of man himself, tales handed down through the ages by those not of first-hand view.

So, to see these frequently incredibly petty views of man merely emphasizes my view of man and God: I’ll take God any day.  Sunni vs Shiite, Catholic vs Protestant, it’s all immaterial and pointless to me with one exception: it emphasizes my belief in holding God close to my vest.  My God isn’t “better” than your God until and unless you want to kill me or convert me.  Because organized religion has taught me one thing: it is corruptive and confuses the essential core values and meaning of worshiping God.  Man, being fallible, gets caught up in the trappings of man himself and forgets the overarching picture.

Which is why I don’t believe in organized religion and why man still fights man over the make, means and manner in which he holds homage to God.

If you enjoy going to church and the concomitant internal struggles you see perhaps in your own religion or perhaps in your very own house of worship, then blessings upon you.  In my opinion, however, life is too short for me to worry about the pettiness of man and the politics of God in some building.

People may not care for this post but, again, I don’t write for you.  I write for me.  You read me or you don’t.  But should you wish to share your opinion, please do so.

Bottom line: I don’t believe in man.  I believe in God.