Democrats Launch Smear Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Adopted Children

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
This smear by a lower level Democrat is a trial balloon on this sensitive issue.

The Democrats will watch and see how the public reacts to this smear
and all jump into the “shark feeding frenzy” if they think it will help them politically.

These are the same type of people running around pretending and telling everybody they can,
that pro-life people don’t care about children AFTER they are born. (Yet Amy Coney Barret is adopting and helping.)

Don’t be fooled by such shenanigans.

.

Democrats Launch Smear Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Adopted Children​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

CSPAN

MATTHEW BOYLE

25 Sep 2020 Washington, DC

Democrats began smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night before President Donald Trump even nominated her to become the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he is expected to do on Saturday afternoon.

Dana Houle, a Democrat activist who was once a chief of staff on Capitol Hill to a Democrat lawmaker, tweeted Friday night that he hopes Barrett is investigated over the children she and her husband adopted from Haiti. . . .

. . . In a third follow-up tweet, Houle added: “Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans, or Americans weren’t scrupulous intermediaries & the kids were taken when there was family in Haiti? I dunno… . . .
Click to expand...

Remember. These are the same people who carp about sending an illegal alien kid back to Central America when she arrives without her parents. (But now they will “carp” much louder about a LEGAL child staying here who is adopted. Because they think there is political gain. Not because they care about children from Central America or anywhere else.)

Again. Don’t be manipulated by their rhetoric.

Just like the attacks on Trump began BEFORE his presidency,
Amy Coney Barret is being attacked BEFORE she is even named.

That is how the left (at least the national left) thinks. Trash and burn. (That is what the Democrats are left with, because their ideas cannot compete.)
 
Last edited:
POLITICS ON LATE NIGHT

Published 38 mins ago

Maher rips Barrett, Trump’s expected Supreme Court pick: ‘She’s a f#**#@ nut’​

Host also slams Democrats for “bringing arrows to a gun fight”​

By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Could Dems surpass Kavanaugh ‘ugliness’ with Amy Coney Barrett?​

Fox News contributors Kim Strassel and Mollie Hemingway provide insight on ‘The Ingraham Angle’

“Real Time” host Bill Maher tore into President Trump’s likely Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night – and warned about the consequences that may follow her confirmation.

During his opening monologue, Maher told his audience about the widely expected SCOTUS pick, though had a tough time pronouncing her name correctly.

“We’ll be saying this name a lot I’m sure because she’s a f—ing nut,” Maher said. "Religion – I was right about that one too. I’m sorry, but Amy [Coney] Barrett, Catholic – really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic . . .
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

Maher rips Barrett, Trump's expected Supreme Court pick: 'She's a f---ing nut' | Fox News


.

Could Dems surpass Kavanaugh ‘ugliness’ with Amy Coney Barrett?​

Sep. 26, 2020 - 2:55 - Fox News contributors Kim Strassel and Mollie Hemingway provide insight on ‘The Ingraham Angle’
Click to expand...
Could Dems surpass Kavanaugh 'ugliness' with Amy Coney Barrett? | On Air Videos | Fox News

 
Last edited:
Let us hope that Barret’s Catholicism has the usual effect on the Democrats in power and they publicly lose their mind with an ardor unseen since the Kavanaugh nomination. It’s a good look for them, and very revealing. To many on the left, religion not only has no place in the public sphere, but it shouldn’t exist at all.
 
Being against adopted kids. Any reason that that would be upsetting to some?
 
I see. Some nut jut embodies all Democrats? Breitbart likes to highlight any person it can find to make a foolish statement – if the person is a leftist.

John McCain went to his deathbed resenting what Republicans in SC did to smear his adoption of his daughter. I guess we can charge all Republicans with that.
 
Last edited:
Megan McCain, a pundit? Or his Bangladeshi adopted daughter? Or his Jamaican daughter-in-law? I’m not familiar with which Republican spoke any of them down.
 
Last night Jenna Ellis was on Tucker she made a very perceptive remark re the vile Dems.
With Kavanaugh they put him through hell for a made up imm moral act.
Now they go after ACB for being too moral.Pathetic!
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Megan McCain, a pundit? Or his Bangladeshi adopted daughter? Or his Jamaican daughter-in-law? I’m not familiar with which Republican spoke any of them down.
Click to expand...
"The “revolting” e-mail—alleging that “McCain chose to sire children without marriage”—was from Richard Hand, a professor of the Bible at Greenville’s Christian-fundamentalist Bob Jones University, Bush’s very first campaign stop, on February 2. With the school’s ban on interracial dating still in effect then, the veteran political reporter Curtis Wilkie told me “he might as well have gone to a ********* Klan rally” as go to B.J.U.

Bush came under attack for it, mostly from Democrats and commentators. McCain said little. (It wasn’t until nine days after the primary that he declared that the G.O.P. is “the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson … the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones.”) But Danielle Vinson, an associate professor of political science at Greenville’s Furman University, who studied the primary in depth, told me that what the media didn’t grasp is that “B.J.U. people are very active, very political; they’re a great campaign resource.” As it turned out, Wilkie said, “Bush knew what he was doing going to Bob Jones”—shrewdly “pandering” to the evangelical vote, just as called for in the Reed game plan."


The progenitor of the ‘Willie Horton’ campaign struck again.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Megan McCain, a pundit? Or his Bangladeshi adopted daughter? Or his Jamaican daughter-in-law? I’m not familiar with which Republican spoke any of them down.
Click to expand...
During the SC primary in 2000,

An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants.[131][148] The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains’ dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a “Manchurian Candidate” who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.

from John McCain on wikipedia
 
Your article starts with a mention of swiftboating, calling for another explanatory note from Wikipedia:
The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating ) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the name of the organization “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (SBVT, later the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) because of their widely publicized—and later discredited—campaign against 2004 U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry.
Click to expand...
 
The thread is about the smears against Amy Coney Barrett even when the left merely THINKS she may have a nomination pending.

Nepperhan. So far you have written about . . .

“Breitbart”,
John McCain",
“Republicans in SC”,
“Richard Hand, a professor of the Bible at Greenville’s Christian-fundamentalist Bob Jones University”,
a “political reporter” by the name of “Curtis Wilkie” comparing Bob Jones University to this . . .,
how someone told someone . . . “told me “he might as well have gone to a ********* Klan rally”,
“Bush”,
“Ronald Regan”,
“Pat Robertson”,
“Danielle Vinson, an associate professor of political science
at Greenville’s Furman University”, . . .
and the subject of “shrewdly “pandering” to the evangelical vote”.

I want to invite you to go begin threads on those subjects Nepperhan.

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the OP here?

That’d be Amy Coney Barrett being smeared for her adopted children.

Here again is the thread title:

Democrats Launch Smear Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Adopted Children​

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We ought to know by now that the radical Democrats have no shame. . . . Let them go ahead and make fools of themselves again, the more times the better, as there may still be some voters who haven’t caught on, yet. I know of at least one former Democrat who is voting for Mr. Trump this time around, because he’s so disgusted with all of this mindlessness, not to mention lawlessness.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Do you have anything to say about the subject of the OP here?
Click to expand...
Do you have any Democratic OFFICIALS conducting a smear? Anything by the DNC? I have not seen anything like that. Comment has been subdued. You posted about others and what ‘Democrats COULD do’. Got anything on what they did do?

We’ve seen the McCain smears by the RNC. There’s a Republican around here who hears voices in his head – should I start a thread saying that craziness runs in the GOP?

Basically, the title of this thread is inaccurate and deceptive.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Democrat OFFICIALS already did this:
“Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett when she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2017.

“And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein continued. “And that’s of concern.”
Click to expand...

Related:

‘Rank religious bigotry’: Black church leaders defend Amy Coney Barrett​

September 26, 2020 | BPR Wire

“But we do know that attacks on her Christian beliefs and her membership in a charismatic Christian community reflect rank religious bigotry that has no legitimate place in our political debates or public life,” the letter said.

President Donald Trump reportedly has selected Barrett as the Supreme Court nominee, multiple outlets reported Friday.

Report Advertisement

The letter continued: “We condemn these vile attacks—which began three years ago during the process of her confirmation for the judicial post she currently holds. As the descendants of slaves we are particularly sensitive to acts of discrimination and we demand an end to this reprehensible conduct.”
Click to expand...

So, already, this has occurred.
 
Last edited:
I know of a couple, as well. They told me privately, perhaps because they thought I would be receptive. They have not been vocal about it and certainly not said so publically or on social media. They voted for Pres. Obama in 2008 and 2012. They have noticed the Democrat party of today is not even the party of the Obama years.
 
It’s nice to know I’m in such impressive company, as another x@#%–ing nut who’s “really really Catholic.”
 
Are we going to admit to the world that a Jew can be elected Mayor of Dublin, a Protestant can be chosen Foreign Minister of France, a Moslem can be elected to the Israeli parliament—but a Catholic cannot be President of the United States? Are we going to admit to the world–worse still, are we going to admit to ourselves—that one-third of the American people is forever barred from the White House?
Click to expand...
That was then Senator John F. Kennedy prior to the West Virginia primary. At that time, the bigotry was from Protestants. Now it is from progressives.
 
Victoria33 said:
So, already, this has occurred.
Click to expand...
No. Feinstein commented on the judge’s writings which is appropriate, not on the judge’s religion. Can’t you tell the difference?

If you read the remarks you could see that they did not focus on Catholicism. You’re just wrong here. Checking a nominee’s impartiality is not bigotry.

You’re building a house on sand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top