Connect with us

UFI

Published

on

On Tuesday, December 2, 2008, The United Families International Blog posted a piece entitled, “Gay Marriage: Sexual Freedom Trumps Religious Freedom”, penned by an unnamed author. The article claims, in part, that where gay marriage is legalized, “those who are free to practice religion lose aspects of that precious freedom.” Huh? Wait, it gets better:

“A perfect illustration of my argument took place in March of 2006 in the liberal state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them. For more than 100 years this respectful organization placed children in homes with goodly parents who would watch over and nurture them as they grew.”

“In 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down their adoption department and get out of the business of finding homes for children. This decision was made after the organization was given an ultimatum from the state government: Comply with state law and adopt to gay couples, or close your doors. The Catholic church condemns homosexuality, it is a practise that is against the Catholic religion, for this they morally could not place a child in to the home of a gay or lesbian couple.”

Sounds like a terrible end to a wonderful story. What a shame. Also, what a sham. UFI is lying. And I called them on it. And they refused to publish my comment on their blog. So, below is my comment that they refused to publish, to their slanted, hateful, bigoted piece. Draw your own conclusions.

“It is a terrible shame. A terrible shame that you have chosen to alter the facts which are clearly and easily verified. You state, “In 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down and get out of the business of finding homes for children.” Really? Forced to shut down? Well, Catholic Charities of Boston is alive and well. Here is their website. As a matter of fact, according to Catholic Charities’ own website, earlier this year the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachussets, Martha Coakley, “served as host to Catholic Charities Greater Boston’s Teen Center at St. Peter’s Job Shadow Day. The daylong event was held at the Attorney General’s Office in Boston.”

“Catholic Charities was not “forced to shut down and get out of the business of finding homes for children.” Catholic Charities WAS performing adoption services to gay and lesbian parents. This from The Boston Globe, which you can read in its entirety here:

“Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.”

“In the end, one Bishop decided against the will of the people in the congregation and against other Bishops and ended their adoptions. They were not “forced to shut down”. They CHOSE to stop helping children. What a shame.

Get your facts straight and present the truth. And have the courage to sign your name to your work. I do.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘It Will Not Come Today’: Judge Kaplan Smacks Down Trump

Published

on

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over E. Jean Carroll‘s successful $83.3 million lawsuit against Donald Trump, issued a cautionary rebuke on Monday to the ex-president who was demanding an immediate ruling on his request to delay payment to the journalist whose lawsuit made him a legally adjudicated rapist.

It is Trump’s third request, according to Law & Crime.

Trump attorneys Alina Habba and John Sauer again requested Judge Kaplan delay the payment due date for 30 days, after alleging Carroll’s attorneys “contradicted themselves in a recent court filing,” as ABC News reports. Habba and Sauer are asking for the delay, or that Judge Kaplan allow Trump to post a reduced bond of just under $25 million.

“Last month,” ABC adds, “Kaplan declined Trump’s initial request for a reduced bond or a delay, but asked for a reply from Carroll’s lawyers. In a filing last week, her attorneys argued that the reasoning in Trump’s request relief ‘boils down to nothing more than ‘trust me.””

Trump has until Thursday to post bond, a total of $91.63 million, so he can appeal.

READ MORE: Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reports, “Judge Lew Kaplan, faced with Trump’s fully-briefed request for a further stay of the E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million judgment, effectively says, ‘I’ll rule when I rule.'”

Kaplan wrote: “The Court is aware of defendant’s request for a decision on the stay motion no later than today ‘to allow time for [him] to finalize arrangements for an appropriate bond if necessary.’ … A decision will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible. Without implying what that decision will be or when it will be made, however, it will not come today.”

Just over a week ago, Judge Kaplan took “a pretty sharp dig at Trump’s attempt to delay the enforcement until right before the wire,” noted Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld. Kaplan had written: “Twenty-five days after the jury verdict in this case, and only shortly before the expiration of Rule 62’s automatic stay of enforcement of the judgment, Mr. Trump has moved for an ‘administrative stay’ of enforcement pending the filing and disposition of any post-trial motions that he may file. He seeks that relief without posting any security.”

“The Court declines to grant any stay, much less an unsecured stay, without first having afforded plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

READ MORE: ‘The Good of the Country’: Trump Explains Why He Thinks He Should Have Immunity

Continue Reading

News

‘The Good of the Country’: Trump Explains Why He Thinks He Should Have Immunity

Published

on

Responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday that he can remain on the Colorado ballot after the state, citing the 14th Amendment, removed him for engaging in insurrection, Donald Trump on Monday suggested he should have absolute immunity “for the good of the country and actually the good of the world.”

The Supreme Court recently decided to take up Trump’s “absolute immunity” claim, which is tied to Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. But falling under that argument could be his Espionage Act case against Trump, also referred to as the classified documents case, and indeed, possibly any case against him for his actions while in office.

“I don’t want to be prosecuted, because I decided to do something that is very much for the good of the country and actually for the good of the world,” Trump said in his rambling remarks, while talking about fighting ISIS when he was Commander-in-Chief.

“We were fighting for 20 years against ISIS. And we did it very quickly. I don’t want to be prosecuted. In that case, it worked out very well. There will be some things that perhaps don’t work out so well, but I don’t want to be prosecuted because I decided to do something that is very much for the good of the country and actually for the good of the world,” Trump said in his remarks.

READ MORE: Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

Trump’s hypothetical, however, is not why he’s being prosecuted.

He is facing a myriad of charges in just the two cases being prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. But Trump also faces charges in the New York District Attorney’s case, often referred to as the “hush money” case, and in the Fulton County election interference case – none of which have to do with battling terrorists overseas.

“A President shouldn’t have that on his mind and he has to have a free and clear mind when he makes very big decisions,” Trump continued, “or it’s going to be nothing more than a ceremonial post. You’ll be president, it’ll be a wonderful thing and you won’t do anything because you don’t want to be hit by your opponent or hit by somebody else because who wants to leave office and go through what I’ve gone through?”

No president in U.S. history has been charged with crimes related to his actions while in office.

Later in his remarks, as Real Clear Politics reported, Trump went on to say, “you have deranged Jack Smith, who is a Trump hater and represents all the Trump haters, and he’s going wild, wild man and he was just overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court, went after other people and he’s a great failure. He is mean, nasty, unfair.”

Smith was not “just overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.” The Court agreed to take up Trump’s immunity claim, which Smith asked the Court to do in December.

READ MORE: Here’s What SCOTUS Just Did – and Did Not Do – in Its ‘Unanimous’ Trump Ruling: Experts

“The judges on these cases are Trump haters,” Trump continued. “Other than we have one or two I think can be fair. But you look at New York what has happened. These people have tremendous hatred.”

Political commentator Bob Cesca responded to Trump’s remarks, writing: “Remaining in office is the goal of a *campaign* not the duty of a *president*. He thinks illegally remaining president was an act ‘for the good of the country.’ He’s tacitly admitting to engaging in insurrection as part of his… duties? Hello, Jack Smith.”

Watch a clip of Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

News

Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

Published

on

A video compilation purports to show 32 times Donald Trump forgot words, mispronounced or mixed up names, got confused, or just “babbled insane nonsense” during his two campaign speeches on Saturday.

The video, posted to social media by attorney and MeidasTouch editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski, lasts under 3 minutes, and has gotten 1.3 million views in under 30 hours.

“’Anybody that loves me, I like them’ – a reminder of how easy it is to play or manipulate Trump and how, per his own words, he has zero principles or values and operates on a purely narcissistic, self-serving basis,” observed journalist Mehdi Hasan, quoting Trump from the video.

READ MORE: Here’s What SCOTUS Just Did – and Did Not Do – in Its ‘Unanimous’ Trump Ruling: Experts

“And yet again the media will be primarily focused on Biden’s age,” lamented pollster and MSNBC political analyst Cornell Belcher. “As if Biden simply being old with no credible ethics issues is somehow equivalent to Trump’s clear cognitive problems along with 90+ criminal counts & an attempt to overthrow an election. Make it make sense.”

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday did a segment on what it called Trump’s “public gaffes.”

“The guy just kept getting confused,” co-host Joe Scarborough told viewers as he introduced video.

“We see it more and more,” Scarborough added, calling it “pathetic and sad.”

“He looks lost.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘All Had Security Clearances’: Trump White House Loaded With Speed, Xanax, and Alcohol – Report

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.