Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
#11 Doorknobs,
As far as Wikipedia as a source I will let you research all of the references and footnotes in the articles. There are 88 footnotes in the first article. Have at it. Wikipedia is a much better source than your “word” which is all that you use. And that “word” is the “word’ of a Republican which has very little value these days.
"People of Praise was formed in 1971 by Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles. Both men were involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, in which Pentecostal religious experiences such as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues and prophecy are practiced by Catholics."
It is referring to People of Praise of which she is a member.
and prayer for physical healing is the same as faith healing.
As cults and religions go, which one is correct? How would the Republicans feel if a Muslim was picked by a POTUS? After all "In God We Trust". What about a Mormon who believes in a separate fairy tale yet claims to be Christian. Can Religion affect how one would vote on The Affordable Care Act? Or Guns? She did rule for a Felon possesing a gun. Praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition.
Republicans, always playing the victim...
Again, Doorknobs the rightie, "attacking" and "trashing" are your words. You are creating a reprehensible strawman argument and then jumping to a mistaken conclusion based on your own mistaken assumption.
While ordinary citizens may certainly critique and criticize radicalized religious extremism that they deem harmful to a functioning society, nobody in Democratic leadership is planning to gratuitously "attack and trash" someone else's benign religious beliefs. That is the exclusive purview of Donald Jerkwad Trump and his fellow travelers vis-à-vis the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.
However, Senators certainly have the obligation, indeed the constitutional duty, to ask Barrett if prophecy, faith healing, speaking in tongues, or any other strongly held religious dogma that she may have internalized will unduly influence her constitutional obligation to strive for and execute impartiality, as ppowell496 indicates.
And while it's totally fine, whether others agree or not, that your "leftie" cousin's "religion trumps her political beliefs" -- we live in a free country (kinda) where even atheism, or any other out-of-mainstream, nonviolent personal belief system for that matter, is, by law, supposed to be on equal footing and enjoy equal protection with Christianity (They aren't and they don't in too many cases.) -- it is not okay in America to have any judge, especially on the Supreme Court, put religion above the Constitution in the performance of her or his official duties and rulings.
A jurist is not a nun. We live in a secular nation, not a theocracy. It would be remiss for the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, not to ensure that that is the case. I'm sure that most rational Latinos and Latinas would agree with that conclusion. Si?
Besides, Trump has so vilified immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America ("criminals, drug dealers, rapists, murders, terrorists") that I seriously doubt very many U.S. Hispanics would vote for such a xenophobe, religious bigot, and all-around hombre estúpido under any circumstance. That "Trump Train" has derailed long ago.
Ever if Ms. Barrett does NOT believe in faith healing nor speaks in tounges, there is plenty in her speeches, from her own mouth to worry about her ability to be partial.
Did you thoroughly enjoy your little "deconstruction" of the OP's opinion?
Please be careful as you dismout from your high horse, it can get throny out there.
I realize what I'm about to say is anecdotal, but it needs to be said. My cousin is a Nun. A School sister of Norte Dame. She's also an evangelical Catholic active in the Latino community. Politically, she's a leftie, but he religion trumps her political beliefs. She would not stand for the trashing of Mrs. Barrett's beliefs, they are the same as hers. Her religious beliefs (both my cousins and Mrs Barrett's) are in sync with the Latino community in the USA. Not that it makes a difference, but Pope Francis is also a evangelical Catholic Latino, and also a Jesuit. Soo bring on the attack, and watch the Latino's in the good old USA jump on the Trump Train...
Ah so, in Doorknobs's reading, Democrats are responsible for the poor decisions and wicked behavior of Republican miscreants -- all the hypocrisy, bad faith, and depravity of the Republicans' Senate star chamber -- just because they failed to stop McConnells' undemocratic juggernaut of lies and corruption. By the same logical fallacy, bank managers are responsible for the actions of a bank robber because they somehow failed to lock up the money more securely. Obviously, Sherlock.
And why, pray tell, is asking to what extent a SCOTUS nominee will allow her strong personal religious views to influence her rulings from the bench an "attack?" The People have a right to know as much as possible about a lifetime appointee who will be making weighty decisions that will affect hundreds of millions of lives long into the future, do they not? Or, do you believe in hiding the truth from the American people as do most other Republicans?
Even though she'll probably never admit it, I'll bet soon-to-be-defeated Susan Collins wishes like hell she could go back in time and change her Kavanaugh vote. This time around, McConnell's antics could cost Republicans the Senate for a generation or longer. Let's hope so.
Indeed, get it on! Let the good times roll...
The Democrats have themselves to blame for allowing President Trump to have his way with appointments:
1. Ginsburg should have retired during the Obama administration. Had she retired in 2014 or 15, Obama would have been successful in getting his nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess Ginsberg, who was at the time was suffering with pancreatic cancer, thought she would live forever.
2. The more egregious mistake was made by that political 'genius' Chuck Schumer. When the Democrats didn't get their way with the Merrick Garland nomination, Schumer dug his heels in and forbid Democrats to vote for Trumps nominee Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch was/is a conservative replacing conservative justice Anton Scalia. In order to get Gorsuch approved, senator McConneel changed the rules for approval from 60 votes to a simple majority and Gorsuch was approved. There was no advantage to be gained or lost by electing Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. However, the rules were forever changed. When Kavanaugh was nominated, all Republicans needed was a simple majority again to have him approved. Had Schumer not been so adamant during the Gorauch nomination, Kavanaugh's conformation would have required 60 votes. At that time the country was not politically ready to change the votes for confirmation from 60 to a simple majority. It's that same today, there's no way the country would accept changing from 60 votes to a simple majority, if it weren't already so. I foresee Democrats doing more damage to their already tarnished reputation if Mrs. Barrett is attacked for her religious beliefs. I hope the Democrats do attack her, let them show to the country just how intolerant they are. Let's get this on.
They just can't help themselves. Since most radical Christianist Republicans, who make up the party's central base as well as a majority of its political leadership, generally think that their SCOTUS nominees should be strict anti-abortionists, they are unabashedly imposing a very narrow religious test in a country where the Founders strove mightily to separate matters of religion and state as much as humanly possible. (Anyone who doesn't understand and agree with the veracity of that statement is simply not paying attention, is badly misinformed, or is lying.)
Therefore, in my opinion, Democrats have a duty and a moral obligation to quiz judge Amy Coney Barrett extensively about exactly how much her far-out religious views will influence her decisions on the highest court in the land, which oversees a supposedly secular government elected by a blend of citizenry with perhaps the most diverse religious views of any people in the world.
Here's a synopsis of Barrett's record by Terry H. Schwadron that doesn't bode well:
“Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.”
Further reading:
An excerpt from the second bullet point:
"People of Praise describes itself as a “charismatic” Christian community, referring to a form of Christianity that believes that supernatural occurrences ― such as prophecy, miraculous healing and speaking in tongues ― can occur in people’s daily lives through the work of the Holy Spirit. These beliefs are most often associated with Pentecostal Christianity, but in the late 1960s, Catholics began adopting this form of spirituality as well." [bold lettering mine]
During the Senate hearing process -- to end any speculation and to document it forever on the congressional record -- Judge Barrett should be compelled to answer for herself the question about prophecy, faith healing, and speaking in tongues and whether or not she believes or has ever partaken in that unscientific nonsense.
At any rate, regardless of the truth and Democrats' legitimate concerns, barring some miraculous intervention from above (tongue in cheek), Senate Republicans have all the tools to ram her through -- primarily: shameless hypocrisy, a boatload of Trump/McConnell/Graham lies, and complete disrespect and disregard for the spirit of the Constitution, and in many cases, the letter as well. But at least the People should have the right to inform themselves about which party is actively destroying our democracy -- lately, on almost a daily basis.
Mr Legend:
I see you get some excercise by 'jumping to conclusions'. When did Wikipedia become a reliable source? I don't know of any educational institution that accepts Wikipedia as a creditable reference. Also, where in the Wikipedia article does it state Mrs. Barrett speaks in tongues? Here's a direct quote from your questionable source. "People of Praise was formed in 1971 by Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles. Both men were involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, in which Pentecostalreligious experiences such as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues and prophecy are practiced by Catholics." As I hope you can see the article is referring to People of Praise founders Kevin Ranaghan, and Paul DeCelles, and uses the words 'such as' when referring to speaking in tongues. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article does it say Mrs Barrett speaks in tongues.
Where in the world did you come up with the statement "She believes in Faith Healing"? There's no mention of 'Faith Healing' in either article. I guess it's a form of magic you do, 'pulling facts out of thin air'. May I suggest you go back and re-write your post, but leave out the excercises and magic tricks.
Amy Coney Barret, The next SC for life Justice. She speaks in Tongues. Her extreme beliefs will affect her Judicial decisions. If Obama had nominated a Muslim, imagine the Republican response.
"In 2012, as a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a letter attacking a provision of the ACA that forced insurance companies to offer coverage for contraception, a facet of the law later modified for religious institutions. The adjustment forced insurance companies – not employers – to alert employees to contraception and abortion drugs that were available under the insurance plan.
The letter Barrett signed said: “The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”
If she is confirmed before the November election, one of Barrett’s first cases could determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act."
She Believes in Faith healing, which the Covid-19 virus will hava a good laugh at.
Hello! Accurate article. I be subjected to made some gratify with constant problem. Here's a my ladylike article here carina dahl youtube In the main I not till hell freezes over animadversion on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never blocking myself to say something here it. You’re doing a critical berth Humanity,Maintain it up.
Hello! Accurate article. I be subjected to made some gratify with constant problem. Here's a my ladylike article here carina dahl youtube In the main I not till hell freezes over animadversion on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never blocking myself to say something here it. You’re doing a critical berth Humanity,Maintain it up.
So much anger and hate! What a sorry, ragtag rabble of white trash protesting illegally without a permit in Portland, Oregon today, itching for a gunfight and desecrating American flags -- whiney little bitches making fools of themselves in their white-supremacist clown getups, placating their racist, "law and order" (ha ha) demagogue.
Let the good times roll...
Yes! Scream and holler and spread that virus amongst yourselves, you goofy fcking idiots. Your army of orcs will defeat themselves as they get sick and die off, that many fewer enemies of democracy. Thank God Oregon has all mail-in voting so that sane people won't have to breathe the foul breath expelled by Trump dead-enders -- simple-minded fools defying city orders to wear masks and social distance.
Also today, in fascist juxtaposition, Trump nominates another unqualified, big-corporate-friendly, religious whack job to the SCOTUS for a lifetime appointment.
"The Supreme Court is finished: Republicans have killed it. Now it's time to fight back.
Trump and McConnell have corrupted the Supreme Court and the judicial branch for a generation. Time to fight dirty." -- Lucian K. Truscott IV
Open carry is working out so well. Wonder what the rest of the world thinks of us?
All of you--politicains, media heads, authors--who predict whether Trump will or won't step down if he loses, are failing to grasp what is apparent. Trump has already told us he cannot lose a fair election and he means it.
Obviously, he is full-throttle-every-way-conceivable trying to bribe, lie, cheat, and suppress votes to steal the election. But, more to the point, Trump's pre-eminent strategy is casting doubt on the election process and its results. He doesn't need a majority of votes, only semblance of doubt. He has already seeded fields of doubt and is vigorously nurturing them as we progress toward Nov. 3. Assurances there will be a peaceful transistion of power IF HE LOSES are pointless. Please, Mr. Biden, stop pacifying us with that line of reasoning. Enough doubt has already been sown that even uttering the words "Trump loss" are buying in to his strategy.
So, wake up Democrats. The "he will/won't, if he loses" debate is a red herring. His ilk cannot (and, unfortunately, need not) accept losing as a possibilty.
Where is administration? It is about advertisement on your website. Thanks.
Where is administration? It is about advertisement on your website. Thanks.
Whatabutt will not take up the challenge. He is beyond that. He sources sites that are much worse than Fox News.
What about that, whatabout? Do you hear what Legend is saying?
Just got back from a week in the mountains where I am off of the grid but still have satellite TV. When away I listen to Podcasts while working. Listened to a Bill Press Podcast with an interview with Brian Stelter, who is the host of CNN's Reliable Sources and author of the New York Times Bestseller, Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth. Very interesting how basically Fox News is controlled by Trump. I will admit that I rarely watch Fox News. I see it for what it is, a brainwashing network that offer the news that it wants you to hear, along with its opinion. And does not present the News that it does not want you to hear. Several websites regularly post the lies and deceits of Fox News. The most known is Mediamatters.org. I generally watch MSNBC which I challenge anybody to debunk or find websites that debunk it. It has a lot of fact and lets you make an opinion. Just to update myself I watched several hours of Fox News this week. It totally makes you realize why so many are still supporting Trump. They do not hear the daily News if they watch Fox News. They basically get opinion only, the opinion that Fox News wants you to have. Give it up for a week. Watch MSNBC or CNN. Or try Democracy Now. Put down Fox News for 1 week and see the change.
"the democrat party" -- Anymore, that worn-out, ill-informed, almost subconscious tell reveals all one needs to know about whatever wingnut slime drips out of the mostly empty zombie skull of a hopelessly indoctrinated Trump troll.
The heart and soul of the Republicon Party -- who cuts the laughable figure of a cartoonish fat slob tweeting on the toilet:
Trump flops at the ABC town hall while facing a real debate monitor and real citizens without his usual ringfort of staff reinforcing his deluded and malevolent worldviews.
@ # 6; DITTO, especially the last paragraph, first sentence..
Remarkably, we still have NO debate about the research done on viruses in our bio-weapon research labs.
Research Dr. Francis Boyle..
The darling of the democrat party Joe Biden debates Joe Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBCuAO9ViM
Bless his heart.
Another excellent history lesson, Thom!
The modern, right-of-center Democratic Party better wake up fast and become fully conscious of the Republican Party's fascist coup happening right now in slow motion, right out in the open for all to witness.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
Perhaps Trump's deep love affairs with Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Duterte, Andrzej Duda, Erdoğan, Bolsonaro, and god knows how many other brazen despots, which he has been openly admiring and not-so-secretly emulating during his illegitimate "presidency," had sprung forth from having been forced to read Animal Farm in middle school.
That's probably one of the few books the "stable genius" has ever actually read. If indeed he really did (if he didn't pay someone else to fake his book reports), he obviously took to heart the exact wrong lesson.
The Trump virus and the CDC:
Unfortunately, the public can no longer trust data coming out of a once world-revered scientific agency. The CDC is now just another bullsht source that Trump's "disgusting people" (Trump, about his supporters) can now add to their arsenal of deadly disinformation, which will result in thousands more dead Americans, who will have made the mistake of trusting Dear Leader.
Grow up and get your head out of Trump's fat ass. People are dying because of fcking idiots who support this psychotic, criminally-minded egomaniac trying desperately to cling to power, which by virtually all truthful accounts he unquestionably does not deserve!
2:49 PMThom, have you ever read an article named, "Beware The Psychopath, My Son"? If you are not familiar with it, may I encourage you to explore the TRUE cause of exactly who has been responsible for the major destructive factor of the good will of humans -- ever since we first formed tribes
The article is the first link ("Research studies have shown ...") on my webpage, www.rushtopower.net.