ECONOMICAL+PANDEMICAL+DECLASS-ATTEMPTED COUP. THE BRITISH ROGUE EMPIRE STILL BREATHES IN THE SWAMP

Sunday, November 1, 2020

CONFESSIONS @ 2ND-INQUISITIONAL-SCOTUS AT THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT...Amy Coney Barrett Is Confirmed & Democrats Vow Revenge | The Daily Socia...

WHILE TRUMP DISTRACTS THE PUBLIC WITH THE "DEEP STATE" STUNT, NONE SAW HOW THE INQUISITION BEGAN CREEPING BACK SINCE 1984 WITH THE BETRAYAL OF RONALD REAGAN AND NOW THE NEW MAGA CULT LEADER.

 

AROUND THE 15TH CENTURY, THE QUAKERS AND OTHER NON-CATHOLICS WERE PERSECUTED IN EUROPE AND SOUGHT REFUGE IN THE NOW USA. EUROPE ENTERED THE DARK AGES, FAMINE AND DISEASE VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED A GREAT PART OF EUROPE. THE SEA ROUTE TO INDIA FUNDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW WORLD AND MEASURES WERE TAKEN TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE INQUISITION.  UPON FOUNDING THE REPUBLIC, CATHOLICS WERE BANNED FROM ENTERING THE USA FOR FEAR OF THE BLOODY INQUISITION.


AFTER OVER A CENTURY, IN 1984, RONALD REAGAN BETRAYED THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
CONFESSIONS: THE MOST POWERFUL SPY NETWORK IN HISTORY.













FULL TIES AFTER 117 YEARS By Steven R. Weisman, Special To the New York Times Jan. 11, 1984 Credit...The New York Times Archives See the article in its original context from January 11, 1984, Section A, Page 1Buy Reprints New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared. SUBSCRIBE *Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers. About the Archive This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions. The United States and the Vatican established full diplomatic relations today for the first time in 117 years. The step, announced here and at the Vatican this morning, was described by spokesmen for the Reagan Administration as intended to improve communications at a time when Pope John Paul II has become increasingly involved in international affairs. But it touched off strong criticism among Protestant groups, as well as some Jewish and civil liberties groups, who criticized the move as a violation of the separation of church and state. Roman Catholic reaction was restrained and cautious. (Page A4.) Californian Picked to Be Envoy President Reagan announced that he would nominate William A. Wilson, a California industrialist and real estate developer, to serve as the United States Ambassador to the Holy See. Mr. Wilson, a longtime friend of the President, has been serving as the President's personal representative to the Vatican since 1981. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story The Vatican's representative in Washington, Archbishop Pio Laghi, serves as an apostolic delegate, the envoy of the Pope in foreign countries with which the Vatican has no diplomatic relations. Under the action taken today, he or his successor would serve as a papal nuncio. Establishment of full diplomatic ties with the Vatican was made possible by a move by Congress last year lifting a prohibition on diplomatic relations enacted in 1867. The original, a product of widespread anti-Roman Catholic sentiment and concern about the struggle for Italian unification, led to the withdrawal of the American minister to the Vatican, Rufus King. Unlock more free articles. Create an account or log in No Debate and Little Attention Since the time of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, some Presidents have sent personal representatives to the Holy See, but attempts to upgrade the diplomatic contact have been opposed. In November, however, when Congress repealed the 1867 ban, there was no debate in either the House or the Senate, and therefore there was little public attention. A spokesman for Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., Republican of Tennessee, the Senate majority leader, said it was too early to tell whether there would be any strong opposition to the Administration's move today. Such opposition could take shape either in the appropriations process or in the confirmation proceedings for Mr. Wilson. Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina and and a candidate for his party's Presidential nomination, said he would oppose elevating the special representative to the rank of ambassador. ''It's in violation of the First Amendment and sets a bad precedent,'' he said. Editors’ Picks On ‘S.N.L.’, Jim Carrey Reads a Spooky Election Update of ‘The Raven’ Will ‘Mank’ Be Netflix’s First Best-Picture Winner? A Podcast Answers a Fast-Food Question That Nobody Is Asking Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story White House Is Not Worried White House officials, however, said they foresaw little difficulty in sustaining today's action or winning Senate confirmation for Mr. Wilson. This was also the view of the office of Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, who led the effort to permit the establishment of diplomatic relations. In defending the action today, Administration officials noted that 106 other countries have full diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Two years ago, Britain established diplomatic ties on the eve of the first visit by a Pope to Britain since King Henry VIII broke with the church in the 16th century. Both Larry Speakes, the White House spokesman, and John Hughes, the State Department spokesman, said there was no violation of the separation of church and state because the United States was recognizing the Holy See, rather than the Roman Catholic Church itself. Pope Held 'in High Esteem' ''The United States holds Pope John Paul II in high esteem,'' Mr. Speakes said. ''We respect the great moral and political influence which he and the Vatican exercise throughout the world. We admire the courageous stands he takes in defense of Western values.'' Mr. Reagan, who is a member of the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, issued no public comment on today's action. For all its historical importance, the announcement today was made in a somewhat low-key manner. It came after several weeks of discussion between the Vatican and American representatives and came at Mr. Hughes's regular daily briefing, at which he read a statement: ''The United States of America and the Holy See, in the desire to further promote the existing mutual friendly relations, have decided by common agreement to establish diplomatic relations between them at the level of embassy on the part of the United States of America, and nunciature on the part of the Holy See, as of today, Jan. 10, 1984.'' A nearly identical announcement was issued at the Vatican this morning: ''The Holy See and the United States of Amerca, desiring to develop the mutual friendly relations already existing, have decided by common accord to establish diplomatic relations at the level of apostolic nunciature on the side of the Holy See and of embassy on the side of the United States beginning today, Jan. 10, 1984.'' May Help Win Catholic Support ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Several White House and Republican political strategists said today that they thought the move by Mr. Reagan would help win support among Roman Catholic voters, although they emphasized their view that this was not Mr. Reagan's motive. Some questioned, however, whether this support would be undermined by defections among Protestant or Jewish groups opposed to the action today. ''There was no real hue and cry up here for this,'' a Republican aide in the Senate said. ''I think you're going to hear some grumbling and grousing, rekindling some of the religious bigotry that's still within this country.'' But a key White House official said public reaction to Mr. Reagan's move was likely to be favorable. ''I would say it's a positive,'' said the official, Faith Ryan Whittlesey, assistant to the President for public liaison. ''The rank-and-file Roman Catholics are pleased that this has taken place. Everybody knows that the Holy See is an international focal point of diplomatic contact. I think the level of opposition will be muted.'' Correction: Jan. 16, 1984 Monday, Late City Final Edition







If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as the new Supreme Court justice, she will be one of six Catholics on the bench. She would be joined by an Episcopalian who was raised as a Catholic. and two Jewish justices.

Never before has the Court been so dominated by one religious denomination, a fact that could conceivably be raised during Barrett's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin on Oct. 12.

"It's legitimate for senators to be concerned about whether the court is reflecting the diversity of faith in the United States," says Marci Hamilton, an expert on religion and law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Whether such a concern will be discussed, however, is another matter entirely.

Not all Catholic justices think alike. Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, both Catholic, are ideological opposites. A strict adherence to Catholic teaching may lead a justice in contrasting directions, from opposing abortion and same sex marriage, to advocating for immigrants and expanded health care, or to opposing the death penalty.

"Catholics tend to pick and choose which parts of Catholic teaching have an impact on their political views," says Thomas Reese, S.J., a Jesuit priest and senior analyst for the Religion News Service.

Article continues after sponsor message

The Catholicism of Sotomayor or Thomas, or that of Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, or Brent Kavanaugh, barely came up in their confirmation hearings.

If Amy Coney Barrett's religious beliefs were to be raised during her confirmation hearings, it would presumably be because her Catholic faith appears to be of unusual intensity and character.

In 2006, Barrett told graduates of the Notre Dame Law School, which she had attended and where she was teaching, that they should see their upcoming legal careers "as but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God."

Barrett later spoke several times at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a conservative training program for Christian lawyers run by an organization that opposes same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights. According to a report in the Washington Post, the training program was established to promote a "distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law."

Barrett's religious beliefs did receive considerable attention in 2017 when she was nominated to be a federal judge on the 7th Circuit Court, the position she currently holds.

"The dogma lives loudly within you," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett at her confirmation hearing. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, then the Judiciary Committee chairman, asked Barrett when it might be proper for a judge to put their religious views above an application of the law.

"Never," Barrett replied. "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law."

In comments on Saturday following President Trump's announcement of her nomination to serve on the Supreme Court, Barrett said she subscribed to the legal views of Justice Scalia, for whom she clerked. "A judge must apply the law as written," she said.

In fact, several of the more controversial positions Barrett has taken as a law professor and federal judge – on gun rights, immigration, and health care – can hardly be attributed to her Catholicism.

Thomas Reese, the Jesuit commentator, says he is not concerned whether candidates for the Supreme Court are Catholic or not.

"We know what their legal reasoning is, what positions they have taken, or what their writings are," Reese says. "Religion becomes a totally irrelevant issue in terms of judging whether they will be the kind of jurist we want."

Moreover, other justices have highlighted their faith without provoking controversy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said she hoped her service on the Court would honor the Jewish admonition to demand justice, and she kept a verse from the Book of Deuteronomy on the wall of her chamber.

Marci Hamilton, currently a senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, says candidates to serve on the Court should nevertheless be prepared to answer questions about how their religious beliefs would influence their judicial decisions.

"It is of course appropriate for all justices to consult their beliefs and their morals as they are working on cases," Hamilton says, "but they are required to be driven by the law. If it is impossible for them to follow what the law requires and instead provide their own religious template on the law, that's inappropriate."

The possible impact of Barrett's Catholicism on her jurisprudence has continued to be a subject of speculation in part because of her reported membership in a conservative Catholic "covenant" community known as People of Praise. The organization, which also includes some non-Catholics, holds to highly traditional social views and has been subject to critical reviews in progressive circles.

Members of the group are "a different kind of Catholic," says Massimo Faggioli, a theology professor at Villianova University who has studied similar Catholic movements. "[Their] Catholic culture is very particular and [their] loyalty to the law goes together with a lifelong commitment to leaders and other members of the group."

Barrett has not discussed her connection to People of Praise, although her supporters insist it is irrelevant to her responsibility as a judge.

One key question is what view Barrett would take in cases involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which says the U.S. Congress can pass no law "respecting an establishment of religion." The clause has been the foundation of arguments that church and state must be separate, but such views have been repeatedly challenged under the Trump Administration and by recent Supreme Court decisions.

"In American public discourse, perhaps no concept is more misunderstood than the notion of separation of church and state," Attorney General William Barr argued this month at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. "Militant secularists have long seized on that slogan as a facile justification for attempting to drive religion from the public square," Barr said, "and to exclude religious people from bringing a religious perspective to bear on conversations about the common good."

The People of Praise group to which Barrett belongs promotes a similarly skeptical view of secularism as a philosophy.

"You already have at least five members of the Supreme Court that have no respect for the separation of church and state," says Marci Hamilton. "I would assume that Judge Barrett will fall into that camp."

If Barrett's views on the Establishment Clause gets attention during her upcoming confirmation hearings, however, it is unlikely to be in the context of any discussion of her faith. Democrats were pilloried for raising questions about Barrett's religious beliefs three years ago. With Catholics seen as a key voter group in the upcoming election, there is little appetite on the Democratic side for making Barrett's Catholicism an issue once again.

In his statement on Trump's nomination of Barrett, Joe Biden, himself a Catholic, avoided any mention of Barrett's faith, criticizing instead her disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also a Catholic, took a similar approach this past Sunday when asked on the CNN program State of the Union whether Democrats should probe Barrett's faith views.

"I think it's appropriate for people to ask her about how faithful she would be to the Constitution of the United States, whatever her faith," Pelosi said. "It doesn't matter what her faith is, or what religions she believes in. What matters is, 'Does she believe in the Constitution of the United States?' "




POST ELECTION: AMY CONEY BARRRETT....2020.11.16.





No comments:

Post a Comment