Viganò: BP. Bransfield a ‘Perfect Example’ of Gay Mafia in the Church

WASHINGTON ( – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is offering further confirmation of the “gay mafia” in the Church.

In comments to Italian journalist Marco Tosatti over the weekend, the papal nuncio-turned-whistleblower confirmed that Bp. Michael Bransfield, the subject of a Vatican investigation that revealed extensive sexual and financial malfeasance, is part of a wider network of corrupt gay clergy in positions of power, connected to Theodore McCarrick, Cdl. Donald Wuerl and others.

“Bishop Bransfield is a perfect example of what I was referring to,” Viganò wrote, in remarks following his Washington Post interview, where he had referred to a “corrupt gay mafia” running the Church.

Bishop Bransfield is a perfect example of what I was referring to.Tweet

Bransfield was suspended last fall after allegations of homosexual misconduct. A detailed Vatican investigation, obtained by the Washington Post, revealed that Bransfield harassed and assaulted seminarians and priests, and also misappropriated millions of dollars in diocesan funds for personal expenses, including thousands spent on alcohol, flowers, flying first class and sending cash gifts to fellow prelates.

Bp. Michael Bransfield and the Papal Foundation

“It is important to note that, before being appointed bishop, he was rector of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. and was president of the [Board of Trustees] of the Papal Foundation, both linked to McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl,” Viganò explained.

The Papal Foundation, with assets worth $206 million, was co-founded by McCarrick in 1988, Bransfield serving as the first president of its board of trustees.

Controversy engulfed the Pennsylvania charity when three stewards resigned from the audit committee in 2018 after Wuerl pushed for the Vatican to receive $25 million — the largest single grant ever given by the foundation. The money was going toward the Istituto Dermopatico Dell’Immacolata (IDI), a scandal-ridden hospital in Rome investigated by Italian authorities for embezzlement and tax fraud of nearly a billion euros.

Pope Francis had allegedly requested the $25 million in the summer of 2017, and Wuerl, then-chairman of the foundation, lobbied members of the board of trustees to vote to approve the grant (originally a loan, but revised to an outright grant on Wuerl’s insistence).

Board members consist of all nine U.S.-based cardinals as well as various bishops and laymen, making up a total of 24 trustees.

Jim Longon, former head of the audit committee, was first to raise objections to the grant.

According to inside sources, Wuerl at the time considered Longon a lone maverick, confident the vote to send the $25 million would be approved unanimously. He was shocked to find that nine of the 24 board members rejected the proposal after a secret vote.

A leaked report detailing the machinations explained:

In a carefully choreographed process the 15 bishops outvoted the 9 Stewards with a vote of 15 YES, 8 NO, 1 ABSTENTION (two bishops did not participate). It was a clear out-muscling of the Stewards. Political favor replaced sound stewardship of our resources.

Media reported in March 2018 that, after the internal uprising within the foundation, Pope Francis cancelled an annual meeting with the organization. Although the move was reported as originating with the pontiff, inside sources confirm with Church Militant that Wuerl was behind the cancellation.

The cardinal had contacted the pontiff and suggested the move in order to send a clear message of displeasure to trustees. His tactic worked, and the board agreed to give the pope the remaining $12 million (up till then, the board had only given $8 million).

To date, the money has yet to go toward its stated purpose: the Italian hospital. Papal Foundation members continue to wonder where the $25 million is now.

After Wuerl resigned in disgrace last October, Boston’s Cdl. Sean O’Malley was announced to replace Wuerl as chairman, with Cdl. Daniel DiNardo as vice chairman.

A member of the Ad Hoc Committee informed Church Militant these were Wuerl’s hand-picked appointees, made after an initial plan to elect new leadership was scrapped by Wuerl. In other words, Wuerl continues to pull the strings.

The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office is still mulling the possibility of investigating the Papal Foundation, a 501(c)3 corporation registered in Pennsylvania and bound by state law, after it was revealed the vote to send $25 million to Rome could be voided for potential fraud. McCarrick, at the time under investigation by the Vatican, had voted to send the money to the very entity investigating him — a material conflict of interest that amounted to little more than a bribe.

The Papal Foundation has connections to other accused homosexual predators, including Msgr. Thomas Benestad, who first chaired the foundation in 1988, and was singled out by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro at his August press conference announcing the publication of the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

The report alleged that in the early 1980s (only five years before being named chairman of The Papal Foundation), Benestad had forced a nine-year-old boy into oral sex, afterwards rinsing out his mouth with holy water to “purify” him.

And Wuerl, most recent chairman of The Papal Foundation, has been caught repeatedly lying about his knowledge of McCarrick. Viganò has described Wuerl as a man who “lies shamelessly.”

To this day, Wuerl has not responded to the Pennsylvania grand jury’s evidence — found in a signed note by Wuerl himself when he was bishop of Pittsburgh — that he paid hush money to buy the silence of a priest involved in a sadomasochistic child porn ring. The priest, Fr. George Zirwas, whom Wuerl had reassigned to various parishes in spite of multiple allegations of abuse of minors, was murdered by a gay prostitute in Cuba in 2001.

$350,000 in Cash Gifts

The Vatican investigation revealed that Bransfield had sent $350,000 in cash gifts to various cardinals and bishops, including $29,000 to Cdl. Kevin Farrell, who lived with McCarrick for six years in Washington, D.C., and who used the money to renovate his apartment in Rome; and $10,500 to Abp. William Lori — the very man appointed to carry out the investigation.

Other beneficiaries include Cardinals Wuerl, Timothy Dolan, Raymond Burke and Viganò himself.

Viganò explained to Tosatti that he was told it was the custom of U.S. bishops to send gifts to newly installed papal nuncios, and that he donated the money to charity.

“In truth I don’t remember all the names of those who were sending me these gifts, because I didn’t pay attention to the name of the donor who was sending me the check,” wrote Viganò, “because this was irrelevant to me, as I had no intention of doing anyone any favors.”

“As I said before, my staff explained to me that this was customary in the United States, and not accepting the gift would be an affront to donors,” he continued. “So, after receiving these gifts, I immediately spent this money in my charity account. I can attach some examples of evidence on how I used my personal money together with the money from these various donations.”

I had no intention of doing anyone any favors.Tweet

He recalled gifts specifically from Cdl. Timothy Dolan of New York, Bp. Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, Cdl. Donald Wuerl and Theodore McCarrick, among others.

“I would like to add that I remember with certainty one of these gifts made immediately after it was announced that I would be sent as a nuncio to the United States, but before I arrived in the United States from the former Cdl. McCarrick, for the amount of $ 1,000,” Viganò said.

Viganò also confirmed that Msgr. Walter Rossi, handpicked by McCarrick to succeed Bransfield as rector of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., is a member of the “gay mafia.”

According to Viganò, as papal nuncio, he had received complaints of sexual harassment of seminarians by Rossi. Multiple sources at the basilica as well as at Catholic University of America — where Rossi sits on the board of trustees — have also alleged that Rossi is an active homosexual.

Read the latest report on Msgr. Rossi here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Catholic Charities Helping to Relocate Congolese Illegal Aliens

Those entering the U.S. through this route did so because they “were scared the [refugee] process was not gonna work, or that it’s last (sic) a standstill.” (Christina Higgs, Catholic Charities San Antonio)

I am furious to see that the border jumpers claim (or at least their Catholic handlers claim) that the refugee process might not work for them!

Why isn’t the media reporting that we have admitted as refugees to the US over 50,000 DR Congolese refugees in under five years with 8,000 arriving here in the last 8 months!

The DR Congolese are at the moment, by far, the largest refugee ethnic group being admitted to the US.

When is enough, enough?

Not fast enough for them so they headed to South America for a long and EXPENSIVE trip to the southern border.

I sure hope we don’t find out that the Catholic Church has been paying for the migration!

If you missed last night’s post about the Laura Ingraham segment about how cagey the Congolese were when interviewed in Portland, go here.

Then see where else this first batch was placed!  The word is that more are on the way!

From the Washington Examiner,

African migrants pass through San Antonio and swiftly fan out across the country

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — Roughly 300 Congolese and Angolan citizens who arrived in San Antonio the first week of June after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border days earlier have all briskly departed the city for destinations across the country, some with fuzzy plans based partly on hope.

The hundreds of family members and single adults from Central Africa first showed up June 4 at the southern border’s Eagle Pass and Del Rio towns in south-central Texas. The migrants surrendered to Border Patrol agents and claimed asylum after crossing the Rio Grande.

The agency did not, as it is supposed to, turn families over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, it released families onto the streets of Eagle Pass and Del Rio, according to two government and nongovernment officials with first-hand knowledge of the matter. The African migrants then bought bus tickets to either San Antonio or Austin, according to San Antonio Interim Assistant City Manager Colleen Bridger.

“If — a family, the sponsor — it’s been 24-48 hours and they can’t buy the [bus] ticket, then we’ll buy it,” Elizabeth Nemeth, executive director of Catholic Charities’ west side center, told the Washington Examiner Thursday.


“They come with a place in mind. ‘My friend told me to go to Portland, Maine, because there’s a lot of Congolese families that already live there and it’s welcoming,” said Nemeth. “And they have that plan in mind, right? But they don’t understand the geography — like where it is, how much it costs to get there. There’s a lot of misconceptions. They may think, ‘I have a friend there,’ but they don’t have a friend’s phone number … [We can look into] what is their last name, phone book, call shelter and ask about them, connect the dots. I wouldn’t say that we’re just putting them randomly.They have an idea.”

The African migrants are spending six to seven months traveling to Brazil then up to the U.S.

Those entering the U.S. through this route did so because they “were scared the [refugee] process was not gonna work, or that it’s last a standstill,” said Christina Higgs, Catholic Charities spokeswoman for the San Antonio region. Some worried traveling to or through Europe was “getting really dangerous.”

“He used the term, and I hate to say it, but they were trying to hedge their bets by coming his way and see if they couldn’t get here that way,” she added.

More here.

We have been more than ‘welcoming’ to the DR Congolese, heck we have been busy moving them en masse (on the taxpayers dime) to every corner of America and it still isn’t enough!  Hundreds simply break in!

My head is exploding!

What is it going to take to get the facts to the public when most reporters are ignorant, lazy, or worse!

RELATED ARTICLE: Illegal Aliens Sue Border Patrol. The Lawsuit’s Outcome Can Have Massive Implications. 

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

19 Arrests Later, a Texas Town Is Torn Apart Over Voter Fraud

EDINBURG, Texas—The story that thrust a Rio Grande Valley city into the national spotlight is hardly a new anomaly, say residents such as Richard Monte.

“Down here, voter fraud is not all that unusual,” says Monte, a city planning consultant in a brown suit jacket, sitting with other activists at a table in Coffee Zone on McColl Road. “It’s unusual when they get prosecuted.”

Now, for this south Texas town, that unusual moment has arrived. A November 2017 mayoral election has been under scrutiny from local and state officials, and 19 arrests have been made over alleged voter fraud. The mayor—and winner of the 2017 election—was indicted earlier this month, along with his wife.

Only 8,400 votes were cast in the mayoral election, and Mayor Richard Molina’s final vote count was more than 1,200 votes ahead of the No. 2 candidate, 14-year incumbent Richard Garcia. From what’s known now, the election result couldn’t have been changed by the number of suspicious votes identified.

But Molina reportedly is the first elected official in Texas to face a felony charge under a 2017 statute against vote harvesting, casting the midsize city into the national debate over election integrity. The mayor denies the charges.

“Some people are unfortunate in that they are caught,” Monte tells The Daily Signal.

Fraud and Small Towns

Across the nation, officials made more than 60 formal findings of voter fraud in 2017 alone, according to The Heritage Foundation’s voter fraud database, and six of those cases were out of Texas. And 2018 saw more than 50 official findings of voter fraud.

“Many of the cases in our database are in small towns,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. “That’s because, one, those kind of races are often decided by a very small number of votes. So it’s easier to commit fraud when you don’t have to fake as many votes.”

“Second, it’s in small towns, particularly rural areas, where, particularly in areas that are economically not as well off as other parts of the country, [that] county and city government are the sources of jobs and contracts,” added von Spakovsky.

“So there is a big incentive in those smaller towns and smaller county governments for people to cheat in order to be in a position of power where they can distribute jobs.”

A federal judge overturned a mayor’s race in Florida’s Miami-Dade County in 1997 because of massive voter fraud that included phony registrations, noted von Spakovsky, who also served on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

“You find cases where it’s just an isolated voter taking advantage of the system,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal, “but there’s plenty of cases in our database where it is an organized conspiracy oftentimes involving an elected official who wants to ensure he is reelected.”

‘Shady Past’

Edinburg, filled with palm trees, Tex-Mex restaurants, and friendly people, is the Hidalgo County seat. Home to the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and the Museum of South Texas History, it has a population of 77,000 as of the 2010 census.

Edinburg boasts parks as well as shopping plazas with box stores and fast-food eateries along streets such as Freddy Gonzalez Drive, Cano Street, and University Drive, where Edinburg City Hall stands.

A sign inside City Hall reads “PRISM,” which stands for “Professionalism and Transparency,” “Respect,” “Integrity,” “Synergy and Cross Training,” and “Maximization of Operational Performance.”

Just down University Drive is a nightclub called Sin.

Based on what prosecutors and some residents say, the nightclub’s name might better characterize the region than do the goals of integrity and transparency on the PRISM sign.

The reputation of the Rio Grande Valley, where the town of Edinburg is nestled, long precedes the mayor’s arrest.

The four border counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata have had executive officials, top law enforcement officials, a county judge, and a sheriff either indicted or convicted of criminal charges.

That’s according to an editorial on Molina’s arrest in The Monitor newspaper in McAllen, Texas, about 12 miles away from Edinburg, which adds that various members of city councils, county commissions, and school boards also have faced corruption charges.

The U.S. Justice Department created a Rio Grande Valley Corruption Task Force in 2015, NPR reported, because the area was “steeped in corruption of every stripe: drug smuggling, vote stealing, courthouse bribery, under-the-table payoffs and health care fraud.”

The Molina voter fraud prosecution might be “selective,” suggests Fern McClaugherty, a licensed firearms instructor who was an unsuccessful candidate for City Council in 2017.

“We have a shady past,” McClaugherty said of the city, speaking with The Daily Signal during a meeting with fellow civic activists, including Monte, at the Coffee Zone.

This past, she said, includes what’s known in the region as “politiqueras,” who are paid by political campaigns or parties to turn out the vote. These local operatives visit nursing homes and adult day care centers, and sometimes entice homeless persons to vote by giving them cash or food.

At the suggestion around the table that election winners in the region “stole it fair and square,” someone jokingly corrected: “They buy it fair and square.”

‘Loud and Clear’

Molina won a four-year term as Edinburg mayor on Nov. 7, 2017, and decisively so.

“The people spoke loud and clear—1,240 votes,” Molina told The Daily Signal in a brief interview after a City Council meeting in late May at City Hall.

Molina ran a reform campaign against Garcia, questioning city contracts and other matters under the incumbent mayor’s leadership.

That winning margin over Garcia, first elected in 2003, was out of 8,400 votes cast in the three-candidate race.

“Insurmountable,” Molina said. “If you do research on any of the elections previously, maybe a couple hundred votes determine the outcome of that election. That’s the biggest margin of victory in the history of the city, four figures. It’s never been done before.”

“It’s very obvious that people wanted change,” Molina, the former Army veteran and 11-year Edinburg Police officer said. “There was an incumbent here that was here for 14 years, and people wanted a new face. The public wants me here. I’m not here because I want to be here. Nonpaying job. It’s easier to walk away.”

Edinburg’s mayor and four council members don’t draw salaries. Under the city’s weak-mayor, council-manager form of government, the city manager oversees administration while the mayor and council oversee the legislative side.

Municipal elections are nonpartisan in this heavily Democratic area.

‘Vote Harvesting Scheme’

On April 25 of this year, Molina and his wife, Dalia Molina, were arrested.

“Molina and his wife had numerous voters change their addresses to places they didn’t live—including the apartment complex he owns,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office announced after the arrests, adding that Molina’s “vote harvesting scheme involved the participation of paid campaign workers, among others.”

Vote harvesting is when campaign workers collect and submit voter registration forms and absentee ballots by soliciting people.

Earlier this month, a Hidalgo County grand jury indicted Richard and Dalia Molina on one count each of engaging in organized election fraud and 11 counts of illegal voting. The indictment names nine co-conspirators.

Molina declined to speak with The Daily Signal about the criminal charges, citing the advice of lawyers. However, he noted that his margin of victory over Garcia far exceeded the number of questionable votes cast.

Ricardo Rodriguez, the Hidalgo district attorney who is prosecuting the case, declined an interview with The Daily Signal during a brief meeting at his office at the Hidalgo County Courthouse Annex, saying speaking about the ongoing case could pose legal problems.

Some of Molina’s supporters, however, insist that the other side engaged in a similar voting scheme, and they suggest the prosecutor has a conflict. They filed their own complaints against presumed Garcia voters.

Molina’s defenders also note that Rodriguez is the nephew of Terry Palacios, a law partner of the former mayor in the firm of Garcia, Quintanilla, and Palacios.

‘Pressured and Persuaded’

The criminal complaint against the mayor lays out a scathing picture of recruiting voters from Sept. 19 to Nov. 7,  2017, which was Election Day. The mayor has denied every allegation.

In Texas, it’s a first-degree felony to engage in organized election fraud, under a bill passed by the state Legislature that went into effect on Sept. 1, 2017.

The law outlines what constitutes an offense committed “with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a vote harvesting organization.”

Shortly after it went into effect, the criminal complaint alleges, Molina “aided, solicited, and encouraged” and “pressured and persuaded” persons who lived outside Edinburg to register illegally with an address inside the city so they could vote for him. One of the addresses is for an apartment complex the mayor owns, prosecutors said.

Most of the 19 arrested, including the mayor and his wife, were charged with illegal voting, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Two were charged with making a false statement on a voter registration form, a Class B misdemeanor.

Documents from the Attorney General’s Office identify “cooperating conspirator witnesses” whose identities are being shielded.

The most damaging information may have come from the seventh cooperating witness, who claimed to be part of a conversation in which Molina said his strategy was to falsely register some voters with city addresses.

This witness said Dalia Molina advised him or her to register at an Edinburg address and vote for her husband, which the witness did, according to the complaint.

The criminal complaint against the mayor’s wife states that on Aug. 21, 2017, Dalia and Richard Molina first asked someone who later became a cooperating witness to make an address change. The complaint further alleges that she followed up Oct. 10 by giving “Person A” a blank voter registration form.

Mayor’s Apartment Complex

Among those arrested were three sisters and their brother whose voter registrations show them living at a four-building apartment complex at 2416 E. Rogers Rd. The apartment complex is owned by Molina, according to a public announcement and additional arrest reports provided by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Arrest reports note that investigators combed through motor vehicle information, school enrollment, and utility bills to determine that those arrested actually lived outside the city limits.

Residents who answered their doors at the apartment complex—located in a rural edge of Edinburg behind several manufactured houses—told The Daily Signal that they didn’t live there in 2017. Some noted that the mayor or his wife collect their rent checks.

“I heard something about a scandal, but I can’t believe he’d be involved in something like that,” said Lewis, 72, a resident who didn’t want to give a last name. “He won by a landslide, from what I heard. Anytime somebody wants to bring down a politician or a preacher or whatever, they just come up with a scandal.”

One of the mayor’s supporters, who asked not to be identified, said it is a low-income complex. Residents rent from month to month, the supporter said, which is why it’s likely someone might have had a different address before or after registering to vote.

Little Blue House

Seven out-of-towners were registered to vote with the address of 409 E. Fay St., a small blue house not far from downtown Edinburg, authorities say. At least four were from a family whose home actually is in Alamo, Texas (about 12 miles away), and another was identified as a boyfriend, according to arrest reports.

The blue house appeared abandoned when visited by The Daily Signal, with boarded-up windows and an overgrown yard. A sign on a chain-link fence says: “For Sale by Owner.”

“They said they all live there,” Molina reportedly said in May 2018 of the seven voters registered with the 409 E. Fay St. address. “I don’t know; I don’t stay in the house with them every day.”

Six others registered to vote with different addresses inside city limits other than East Rogers Road and Fay Street, but didn’t live at those addresses, according to arrest reports.

In May 2018, Texas Ranger Chad Matlock interviewed a cooperating witness who admitted to changing his or her voter registration on Sept. 19, 2017, after Molina said the witness “was permitted to do so.” The witness then voted illegally.

Another witness, in an interview with the Election Fraud Unit’s investigator Sgt. John Waits, admitted to doing the same, falsely registering on Oct. 10, 2017, before illegally voting in the municipal election. This witness claimed he or she “would have never falsely changed” the registration if Richard Molina “did not solicit” the action.

This witness claimed to have received numerous text messages from Molina for several days before the election, as a reminder to vote.

Another witness said Molina “provided the address” to use on a voter registration form.

The Texas Rangers made the first round of arrests in May 2018, charging four individuals with illegal voting, including one they said registered to vote with the Fay Street address and another with the East Rogers Road address, but who actually lived outside the city.

In November 2018, a year after the election, the Rangers made another roundup of Hidalgo County residents mostly connected to the Fay Street and East Rogers Road addresses, charging them with illegal voting.

Of the 10 charged, three were not registered at either the East Rogers Road or the East Fay Street addresses.

Al Alvarez, a McAllen lawyer who represents one of the defendants in the case, is critical of the law that led to the prosecution.

“Historically in Texas, all cases about voting were misdemeanors because we want to encourage people to vote, not discourage them,” Alvarez told The Daily Signal. “It’s difficult to know where the law ends and politics pick up, but the people suspect.”

“Election cases usually don’t do very well,” he said. “Politics don’t change through prosecutions, they change through elections.”

The Investigation’s Start

After Molina’s victory, Mary Alice Palacios, a former municipal judge with connections to the defeated mayor, compiled information about voter addresses. She sent her complaint documenting addresses to the Office of the Texas Secretary of State, which referred most of the questionable registrations to the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Palacios “alleges that multiple persons provided false information to register to vote and voted illegally,” the attorney general’s Law Enforcement Division said in a memo dated Jan. 22, 2018.

Palacios is the aunt of the Hidalgo county prosecutor involved in the case, Rodriguez. Rodriguez disclosed his connection with her to Paxton’s office, which primarily pursued the case through Waits. Texas Rangers in the state’s Department of Public Safety also investigated, according to the April 25 criminal complaint from Paxton’s office.

Molina has also reportedly called the investigation retaliation because Palacios had a $300,000 insurance contract with the city that was cancelled when Molina was mayor.

Palacios returned a phone call from The Daily Signal, but declined to comment on the case while it is under investigation.

‘Wrong Case?’

Paxton, the attorney general, expressed appreciation in a press release for the district attorney’s “commitment to election integrity” in this and unrelated cases.

However, not everyone in Edinburg thinks the commitment is consistent.

Jerad Najvar, a Houston lawyer who has actively fought voter fraud, represents Molina in the recall matter. He contends that Paxton is pursuing the wrong case.

“Molina’s side filed the same complaints, but the attorney general wanted a big fish. This is a mayor of a reasonable-sized city,” Najvar told The Daily Signal.

Supporters of the mayor, including his wife Dalia, made complaints to Texas Secretary of State David Whitley about presumed Garcia voters. They provided motor vehicles records and land deeds as evidence that likely Garcia voters registered with Edinburg addresses were residents not only of nearby McAllen but also of Houston and San Antonio.

The Secretary of State’s Office received 12 complaints against Garcia’s campaign for recruiting nonresidents to vote in the city election. It determined six complaints had enough evidence to refer to Paxton’s Election Fraud Unit, spokesman Sam Taylor said.

“If there was not enough evidence to warrant an investigation, we didn’t refer,” Taylor told The Daily Signal.

Asked about Molina’s margin of victory, Taylor said: “I’m not aware that there were 1,200 illegally registered voters in the city; I believe [it’s] far less.”

Among the complaints against presumed Garcia voters, alleging they used phony addresses, including one complaint about Mary Alice Palacios.

The one about Palacios, the former judge who filed the first complaint against the Molina campaign, is one of the six complaints the Secretary of State’s Office confirmed forwarding to the attorney general for investigation. It accuses Palacios of living outside the city but using another address.

“They are using prosecutorial discretion to allow prosecution of just one side of the aisle,” Najvar said, referring to the case against Molina. “The incumbent Garcia and Palacios were law partners.”

“The public sees through it. This is an effort to take back the power they lost in 2017,” he said, referring to the mayoral election.

“I’m all for fighting voter fraud and I’ve done so in Hidalgo County,” Najvar said. “Attorney General Paxton is going after voter fraud. That’s fantastic. But Paxton has been jerked around on this by complicit local prosecutors.”

Taylor, spokesman for the secretary of state, said the attorney general’s office typically doesn’t confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. So it doesn’t comment on whether Garcia supporters also are under scrutiny.

Paxton spokeswoman Kayleigh Lovvorn initially told The Daily Signal that someone from the office would address the matter, but the office did not respond to several follow-up calls and emails.

The Next Chapter

As the mayor, his wife, and those accused of voting after registering with fake addresses move toward a trial, the next chapter could be a recall election.

Robert Solis, a nurse anesthetist, says he isn’t particularly political but started a petition drive to recall Molina because he thought Edinburg was getting a black eye.

“It looked bad on our city. I mean, we made The Washington Post, we made The New York Times, USA Today, Austin [American-] Statesman,” Solis told The Daily Signal. “It’s kind of embarrassing.”

Solis and others have collected more than half of the nearly 2,200 signatures they need by June 21 to trigger a recall. They seek signatures at tables set up in the Echo Hotel and at public events such as a 5K race.

Solis, leader of the recall effort, said he is familiar with allegations against both sides, but would like to see the city make a new beginning.

“I know the people that I have talked to on both sides, mainly on the recall side, really want to push, hopefully, somebody new, somebody not involved on either side, somebody that can bring new leadership to Edinburg,” Solis said.

Recall efforts are not unusual at the municipal level in Texas or nationally, and public officials frequently weather the storm, according to data from Ballotpedia, a nonprofit that tracks election information.

“In 2018, Ballotpedia covered 206 recall efforts against 299 officials” nationally, Dave Beaudoin, news editor at Ballotpedia, told The Daily Signal. “Recall attempts targeting 150 officials did not make it to the ballot.”

“Of the 123 officials whose recalls made it to the ballot,” Beaudoin said, “77 were recalled and 46 survived the attempt. Ten other officials resigned before their recalls could go to a vote. That year had the largest percentage of recalls approved at the ballot since our tracking began in 2012.”

Mayors accounted for 13% of the recall efforts across the country in 2018, down from 19% the year before.

The mayor’s office contends it’s business as usual.

“Day-to-day operations are not affected at all,” city spokeswoman Cary Zayas told The Daily Signal, talking about the case against Molina. “The mayor remains the mayor. … He has been very much accessible at all times.”

“He’s at the meetings,” Zayas said of Molina. “He’s conducting business, he’s going to groundbreakings. He’s carrying on with business as usual because he denies any wrongdoing, No. 1; and No. 2, there is no reason why he shouldn’t.”

Monte, the planning consultant, said he worries that a recall election for Molina at this stage is “putting the cart before the horse.”

“Whether you believe the mayor is guilty or not, I think that we need to wait for the process,” Monte said. “He has been arrested, but he has not been tried. He has not been found guilty. There is already a recall. It’s politically based in reference to other people that wish they were mayor or want to be mayor, rather than anything else.”

Other Edinburg residents have differing views.

“If the mayor committed voter fraud, he should pay a price,” Sara Reyes, 47, told The Daily Signal outside a shopping center in Edinburg. “He should stay clean. This is why people don’t trust politicians.”

Abel Rocha, 46, said Molina “seems like a good man.”

“I’ll leave it up to God,” Rocha said in an interview near the same shopping center. “If he committed a crime, or it ends up he did something wrong, he’ll be punished.”

Joseph Schubert, 51, had a more decided view.

“I’ve heard people talk about it, but the mayor won in a landslide,” Schubert said in a parking lot interview. “I think some people are just sore losers.”


Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.”Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


Trump’s Expansion of Health Reimbursement Accounts Improves Health Care Choices

How Victim Mentality Is Pushing Women Toward Socialism

Forum on Black Male Mental Health Highlights the Importance of Fathers

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Georgetown, other universities accused of covering up millions taken from jihad-promoting Qatar

Georgetown University is a national disgrace, employing numerous apologists for jihad and professional dissemblers about the teachings of Islam that incite believers to commit acts of jihad violence. The millions it is alleged to have taken from Qatar may be a partial explanation for its steep decline from academic institution to Islamic dawah and propaganda outfit. The Department of Education is right to be (finally) looking into this.

“FOREIGN MEDDLING: Department Of Education Going After Elite Colleges For Allegedly Taking And Hiding Foreign Cash,” by Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller, June 15, 2019:

The Department of Education is going after U.S universities over supposed ties to foreign governments, after some allegedly took huge quantities of foreign cash and hid it from regulators.

At the top of the list are Georgetown University and Texas A&M, which have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from the government of Qatar, a middle eastern nation with suspected links to international terrorism.

Both schools received letters from the Department of Education Thursday saying they should have disclosed that funding but their filings “may not fully capture” the activity, the Associated Press reported. The letter warned that they could be referred to the attorney general to “compel compliance.”

Georgetown was also asked about possible ties to Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, as well as Saudi Arabian money. Both schools were ordered to disclose funding from Huawei and ZTE, Chinese firms suspected of spying….


Muslim MP slams UK government for silence over Trump’s twitter attack on London Muslim mayor

Dueling Senate Resolutions on Anti-Semitism Condemn Omar, Promote Islam

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Don’t Say They Didn’t Warn You: Left Leaning Voices Question Democrats’ Anti-Gun Proposals, Fervor

If the 2020 Democrat presidential primary is any indication, that party’s base and donor class will accept nothing less from their nominee than commitments to sweeping gun control. And the contenders appear happy to accommodate them.

No one doubts that the political hard left is unified around the idea of gun control in principle. But some in that camp are expressing concern that the pathway to the presidency may not lie in promising to criminalize otherwise law-abiding gun owners and to seize firearms that were obtained lawfully and never misused by their owners.

Honesty, in other words, is not the best policy when it comes to infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.

Leftist political pundit and talk show host Bill Maher claims to be a reluctant firearm owner, but no one would mistake him for a Second Amendment advocate. “[T]he Second Amendment,” he has repeatedly said, “is bull-[expletive deleted].”

Nevertheless, he is among the seemingly dwindling number of those on the far left who still maintain some awareness that America is a big country and that its politics are not necessarily defined by its most “progressive” coastal enclaves.

Last Friday, Maher used a panel discussion on his cable show “Real Time” to caution fellow opponents of Donald Trump that many Americans like guns. “Lots of people do,” he said, “and their view is, ‘Yes, there is a violence problem with guns, but not me. And you’re going after me.’”

Referring to the Democrats’ gun control proposals, Maher continued: “And I’m just saying, some of their solutions, all of the solutions, I don’t know if it would solve the gun problem.”

Maher went on to remind his guests that “we’ve lost elections before on this issue, which is not a winning issue for Democrats.” He also said that “liberals should learn more about guns” and noted that primary contender Cory Booker – who recently invoked the Virginia Beach murders to argue for gun control – did not answer the questions of CNN’s Jake Tapper about how his own proposals would have prevented those crimes.

Maher’s advice, unsurprisingly, was not well received by his guests. Charles Blow, a writer for the New York Times, insisted that “journalists have to stop asking that horrible question.” Blow indicated that picking out one incident to focus on is unfair, given the broader scope of firearm-related deaths in America. “The framing of the question is wrong,” Blow lectured.

Blow might have had a valid point, but for the fact that Booker and his fellow candidates essentially demand these inquiries by constantly bringing up rare but infamous and highly-publicized mass murders that account for a tiny fraction of firearm-related deaths, most of which are suicides.

Commonplace firearm-related homicides, meanwhile, very often occur in cities with strict gun control and involve repeat offenders who ignore the laws already on the books and undoubtedly would do the same to any additional laws that were imposed.

To his credit, Maher himself seems to recognize this. “You really don’t think it’s that simple?” he asked Blow. “It’s complicated. If you did everything that the Democrats wanted – and I support all of that – I still think you would have this problem, because it’s much more complicated than just the guns … or the type of guns.”

Later, Jake Tapper would find himself fending off a social media mob incensed that he would ask an embarrassing, if obvious, question of a left-leaning politician who favors gun control. “Booker changed his speech in CA to talk about the Virginia Beach shootings and need for more gun laws,” Tapper tweeted the Sunday after the Maher piece aired. “Asking what laws would have prevented/mitigated the specific tragedy he wanted to discuss was a natural question and a sincere one too.”

Maher and Tapper are hardly the first on the left to recognize the conundrum of gun control advocates who exploit the victims of mass murders to promote their agenda without actually offering any responsive proposals.

Mark Glaze was a founding figure and executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire, Everytown for Gun Safety. Glaze stepped down from that position in 2014, telling the Wall Street Journal at the time: “Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

Later, Glaze would become an advisor to another gun control group, Guns Down America, which aims to “take down the NRA, ” “reduc[e] the number of guns in circulation,” and “[m]ake guns significantly harder to get … .”

Glaze, in other words, can at least take satisfaction in now being more honest about his intentions. It’s not a question of preventing unpreventable crimes. It’s simply a question of doing everything possible to get rid of guns and to silence those who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms.

The real problem for anti-gun Democrats and gun control advocates, however, isn’t how they package their message.

It’s that they want to take away the hard-won freedoms of a freedom-loving people.

And while their occasional moments of self-reflection may not be making much of a dent in the fanaticism the hard left has for gun control, voters who support the Second Amendment should pay close attention.

Because when the oversharing of the primary ends and the real presidential campaign begins, the eventual nominee may well heed Maher’s advice and take a much more moderate (and misleading) tone on guns.

Yet the Democrat hopefuls have by now expressed all that needs to be said to betray their true designs on your Second Amendment rights.


Pittsburgh Mayor Presents DICK’S CEO an Award for Gun Control Advocacy

Advice Columnist Tells Father to Evict Daughter from His House for Owning a Gun

Bloomberg Course: Ineffective Policies and Non-Existent Technology

New Jersey “Smart Gun” Law Gets an F Grade

Obama Lies about Guns… Again

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Florida Passes Toughest Sanctuary City Ban In The Nation

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed into law the toughest sanctuary cities bill ban in the nation, keeping a campaign promise despite apoplectic, snarky media coverage.

DeSantis today signed Senate Bill 168 requiring Florida law enforcement officials and governmental entities to honor federal “immigration detainer” requests that ask a law enforcement agency to detain someone on probable cause that they can be removed from the country under federal immigration laws. That is, they are here illegally and will be sent home. Because law enforcement is holding them, that means they either have or are accused of committing crimes beyond illegal entry into the U.S.

In sanctuary cities around the nation, law officers cannot hold them for Immigration officials, but must release them back into the population.

The new law prohibits local officials from implementing any sort of “sanctuary” policies, which problematically had previously not been defined in state law, and gives the governor the authority to remove officials from office if they do not comply with the law.

That is a powerful strong law.

Despite the media talking about how the law is “controversial” — mostly in newsrooms and Democratic headquarters — DeSantis and team created a huge, public signing ceremony, live-streamed it on Facebook and had a lot of those involved present. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who represents Okaloosa County, where the bill-signing took place, and bill sponsor state Sen. Joe Gruters, of Sarasota, also the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, joined at the event.

Apparently these guys don’t feel it is too “controversial.”

DeSantis told a packed Okaloosa County Commission Chambers that the bill “is about the rule of law” and emphasized the issue of “public safety.”

“I said we were going to do certain things, and I’m happy to report after having just one legislative session under our belt we’re delivering on the promises we made to the people of Florida,” he said.

Sanctuary cities are popular in liberal states and in some cities in red states. But they are also havens for criminals who obviously flock to those areas where they will be protected from the feds.

DeSantis called them “law-free zones” where people who are here illegally can commit crimes, and then “just walk out the door and continue to do it.”

The media is running their normal PR campaign for Democrats. The Tampa Bay Times’ snarky headline is: “Gov. DeSantis signs ‘sanctuary cities’ ban into law. There aren’t any in Florida.”

Well yes, because there had not been a definition before and this is designed to make sure there won’t be any in the future.

Here’s the lead right below it.

“Fulfilling a key, controversial campaign promise popular with his party’s base, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Friday that will ban so-called “sanctuary cities” in Florida, though the policy is expected to draw a legal skirmish over its constitutionality as it goes into effect next month.”

See, it’s just about playing to the base. But is it? The Hill reported:

“A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.”

So maybe not all that controversial among Americans after all. Mostly journalists.

Considering the chaotic and tragic crisis at the southern border that President Trump and some Republicans have been trying to fix — and being blocked at every turn by activist judges and Democrats in Congress — this issue will remain a winner for Republicans in 2020.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: ‘Extraordinary illegality’ — MI5 accused of storing personal data in ungoverned spaces

This entry was posted in EnglandGalloping statism by Eeyore. Bookmark the permalink.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger’s Catholic.

Politicians Must Face Consequences for Crimes They Enable: Malfeasant politicians must find no “sanctuary.”

The phrase, Failure is Not An Option served as the title of the book written by Gene Kranz, Flight Director for NASA who helped create the U.S. manned space program and was instrumental in successfully returning the crew of Apollo 13 to the earth after their spacecraft suffered a catastrophic explosion half-way to the moon.

In most professions, especially where lives are on the line, failure to do the job is not an option.  This is particularly true where law enforcement and the military are concerned.

Politicians, not unlike members of the military and law enforcement officers, take oaths of office where they swear (affirm) that they will enforce our laws and defend the Constitution.  While law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces may face dire consequences for violating their oaths of office, politicians generally do not.

Their oaths of office do not provide an “escape clause” whereby they may opt to ignore any of the laws that are not to their liking.

Unlike the entries on the menu of a restaurant where the patrons order the food that they find palatable or where they may substitute one item on the menu for another, their oaths of office demand that those who take that oath agree to enforce all laws and honor and defend all of the provisions of our Constitution.

Dereliction of duty is a serious offense for members of the armed forces and for law enforcement officers and one that carries significant consequences.

On June 4, 2019 ABC News reported, Police arrest ex-deputy who ‘did absolutely nothing to mitigate’ Parkland school massacre.

We will not delve in the specifics of this ongoing case, but it is important to note that the deputy sheriff in this case has been charged with multiple crimes, some of which are felonies, all emanating from his alleged failures to act to protect the children who were killed in that school.

Contrast how that deputy is being prosecuted for alleged failures to act with the politicians who, with impunity, demand that law enforcement officers not act to cooperate with immigration law enforcement personnel – even when those actions result in the death of innocent victims.

The outrageous assertions that “Sanctuary” policies protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement are blatant lies.  Law abiding aliens, immigrants and non-immigrants alike, need no protection from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents..

Aliens who violate our immigration laws, however, pose a threat to national security and public safety.  The 9/11 Commission was crystal clear that the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and other such attacks conducted by aliens in the United States were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system.

In fact, I would argue that violations of our borders and immigration laws must be seen as violations of our Constitution.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Invasion is defined, in part, as an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity or an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

My recent article, Sanctuary Policies Kill, included a link to a May 21, 2019 ICE press release, ICE seeks custody of teen murder suspects for a second time– Local jurisdiction failed to honor previous detainers which began with this excerpt:

BALTIMORE – Following the recent arrest of two unlawfully present teens suspected in the violent murder of a young girl in Maryland, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Baltimore are again seeking to take custody of the illegal aliens through the ICE detainer process following the Prince George’s County Detention Center’s (PGCDC) failure to cooperate.

Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar, both Salvadoran nationals, were previously arrested on May 11, 2018 when they were arrested by Prince George’s County Police Department (PGCPD) for attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges. ICE officers lodged a detainer with PGCDC, however both were released on an unknown date and time without notification to ICE.

On May 16, 2019, PGCPD arrested the same individuals and charged them with first-degree murder.

That girl who was killed was stabbed and bludgeoned to death was just 14 years old, roughly the same age as some of the children who were shot to death at the Parkland school massacre.

She is no less dead than are the victims of the school shooting in Florida and her life is no less valuable.

Had the officials of Prince George’s County honored the ICE detainer, that young girl would still be alive today.

Tragically and infuriatingly, this is not an isolated case.  This refusal by “Sanctuary” jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE occurs across the United States with sickening regularity and all too frequently with innocent people being killed.

Malfeasance has been defined as the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.

It would certainly appear that the promulgation of “Sanctuary” policies constitutes malfeasance.

Furthermore, when the political leaders of a jurisdiction order law enforcement officers who are under their command to ignore immigration laws, they are inducing/coercing malfeasance by those sworn law enforcement officers.

Our nation’s borders and our nation’s immigration laws make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity.  They were enacted to prevent the entry and continued presence of aliens who pose a threat to public safety, national security and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

A review of one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S. Code § 1182 that enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from entering the United States dispels any doubts about the nature of our immigration laws.

Additionally, multiple failures of the House and Senate to fund a border wall, provide funding for enhancing the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of, and provide legal remedies to failure of the immigration laws particularly where political asylum and the Flores Decision are concerned, further exacerbates the immigration crisis.

Adding fuel to the blazing fire that is the obvious crisis along the border, the Democrat-controlled Congress just passed a new version of the DREAM Act, as reported by CBS News on June 5, 2019, House passes latest DREAM Act, hoping to place millions of immigrants on path to citizenship.

At the same time it was reported, California Lawmakers Move to Expand Medicaid for Illegal Immigrants.

Rather than deter illegal immigration, these legislative actions incentivize illegal immigration.

A section of the INA, 8 U.S. Code § 1324, establishes crimes that relate to the smuggling of aliens into the United States as well as the harboring, shielding such aliens from detection.

That section of law also deems it to be a crime to encourage or induce aliens to enter the United States illegally or remain in the United States illegally or otherwise aids or abets these crimes or crimes relating to conspiracies to commit these crimes.

This law seemingly only applies to “mere” citizens but not to our political elites.

Either through litigation and/or elections, those politicians who obstruct immigration law enforcement and thus fail to adhere to their oaths of office and Constitutional responsibilities, must be made accountable.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Argentina Criminally Charges Homosexual Bishop Close to Pope Francis

by William Mahoney, Ph.D.  •

Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta facing both criminal and canonical trials

SALTA, Argentina ( – A homosexual bishop from Argentina undergoing a canonical trial has been criminally charged with sexually abusing seminarians.

The prosecutor’s office in the Argentine province of Salta publicized the formal charge on Friday. Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta could be facing three to 10 years in prison for “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization.”

Prosecutor Mónica Viazzi charged Zanchetta last Thursday with sexual abuse aggravated by his religious authority.

Zanchetta was scheduled to return to Rome last Friday but authorities confiscated his passport and banned him from leaving Argentina.

He has also been required to establish permanent residence in Argentina, be present at all hearings regarding his case and stay away from his victims and their families. Zanchetta would be taken into custody immediately for violating any of these requirements.

In May, Pope Francis told Mexico’s Televisa that he had received the results of a preliminary investigation into Bp. Gustavo Zanchetta and ordered the case be canonically tried by a Vatican tribunal, marking a notably different direction in dealing with Zanchetta.

In September 2015, Chancellor Secretary Luis Amancio Díaz discovered pornographic pictures on Zanchetta’s phone. The pictures included gay porn involving young men and images of Zanchetta showing his genitalia and sexually gratifying himself. Using WhatsApp, the pictures were shared with third parties.

Three of Zanchetta’s vicar generals and two monsignors filed a formal complaint a year later with Swiss Archbishop Paul Emile Tscherrig, the papal nuncio to Argentina.

Those reports stated that Zanchetta would “watch seminarians in their rooms at night with a flashlight, ask for massages, go into their rooms and sit on their beds, encourage them to drink alcoholic beverages, and had certain preferences for those who were more graceful [looking].”

The Vatican had been denying that the Pope had any knowledge of this as late as January, stating that they only learned of the allegations in 2018; however, Fr. Juan José Manzano, Zanchetta’s former vicar general, has contradicted this denial by telling the AP that he reported Zanchetta to the Vatican in 2015 and 2017.

“In 2015, we just sent a ‘digital support’ with selfie photos of the previous bishop [Zanchetta] in obscene or out of place behavior that seemed inappropriate and dangerous,” Manzano said. “It was an alarm that we made to the Holy See via some friendly bishops.”

“The nunciature didn’t intervene directly,” he continued, “but the Holy Father summoned Zanchetta and he justified himself saying that his cellphone had been hacked, and that there were people who were out to damage the image of the Pope.”

Church Militant covered this papal cover-up in January, and Michael Voris discussed it when covering the summit on clerical sex abuse in February.

After Zanchetta met Francis in 2015, the Pope permitted Zanchetta to continue as bishop of Orán for another two years. Then, in 2017, as mainstream media began covering the story, Zanchetta suddenly resigned as the bishop of Orán, disappearing for months.

He reappeared in Rome as an “assessor” — a position Francis seems to have invented — for the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), the Vatican office that oversees millions of dollars in Church real estate.

While many faithful Catholics think the hierarchy from the very top cannot be trusted to police themselves on clerical sex abuse (and other matters), secular law enforcement stepping in to handle the policing in Argentina, the United States and elsewhere is on the rise.


Catholic Church spent $10.6 million to lobby against legislation that would benefit victims of child sex abuse

Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider Sign ‘Declaration of Truths”

University of Alabama Returns $21.5 Million to Donor who urged boycott over abortion

Denying History

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Watch Author of ‘Unplanned’ Abby Johnson’s Full Speech in Orlando, FL

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life advocate, shared her story at Florida Family Policy Council’s Annual Policy Awards Dinner in Orlando, May 11, 2019.

VIDEO: Accused California Priest Smears Victims — Msgr. Craig Harrison accused of homosexual predation


A small California community in shock after its beloved pastor was suspended over allegations of homosexual predation.

The case, involving abuse of young men, with evidence of at least one suicide, is exposing homosexuality and financial corruption in the Fresno diocese, under a bishop who appeared to look the other way.

Yet remarkably, the community is protecting its priest.

Hello, I’m Michael Voris. Welcome to this special report, where we’ll look at the case of Msgr. Craig Harrison, an over-the-top popular priest in Bakersfield, California, now on leave after multiple men claim are coming forward accusing him of sexually abusing them.

Harrison is a favorite son in Bakersfield, born and raised there, a priest for more than three decades, pastor at St. Francis Church for 20 years, chaplain to the Bakersfield Police Department and Kern County Sheriff’s Office.

Even a building and street are named after him, as well as being a prolific fundraiser for the diocese.

Unusually, Harrison adopted four boys and has legal guardianship over another four, many whom he met when he ran a home for troubled teens in poorer towns of Merced and Firebaugh.

The most disturbing allegations come from his time living with these troubled youth.

Stephen Brady, who has made something of a career rooting out homopredators was recently in Bakersfield.

“It’s totally inappropriate for a priest to adopt children,” said Brady. “And Fr. Harrison has a lot of money around him — different people donating vehicles to him, all the money he’s soliciting, for helping these boys, these troubled kids, if you will, and that whole scenario reeks of corruption, because what bishop in their right mind would allow a priest to adopt several children?”

Harrison had won an award for his foster care work, getting large donations helping young men get off the street and away from a life of drugs or prostitution.

But accusers say he preyed on the very boys he promised to help, using his foster care service to single out vulnerable young men — and use them for sex.

The diocese of Fresno officially learned of allegations against Harrison on April 12, involving a 16-year-old altar boy claiming the priest groped him three different times.

Three days later, they reported the allegation to police, and on April 25 Harrison was suspended from ministry.

Since then, five more men have come forward accusing the priest of abuse, one of them filing a police report as recently as May 8.

The only alleged victim to go public so far is 30-year-old Br. Justin Gilligan, a former member of Harrison’s parish, who said in a public statement, “I was in Fr. Craig’s inner circle from 2011 to 2016 and am a victim of his inappropriate touching, lies, manipulation and abuse of power.”

He goes on to say, “I witnessed him being inappropriate with children, giving gifts/money, saying sexual jokes, touching, and being alone with them. … I have also witnessed him taking advantage and controlling the lives of younger men entrusted to him that have had drug or alcohol problems.”

Harrison is denying everything, instead smearing the alleged victims calling them liars and accusing Gilligan of a drinking problem.

Gilligan tells Church Militant he is standing by his charge, which also included a prediction Harrison would attempt to destroy his reputation.

Gilligan and his family have been the target of sustained attacks by supporters of the powerful monsignor, who’s secured four attorneys to defend him.

In the face of Harrison’s denials, this isn’t the first time he’s been suspected of abuse. Police received an accusation more than 20 years ago, in 1998.

The diocese conducted an internal review, dismissing the claim as not credible. That was under the late Bp. John Steinbock 0151 a bishop with a reputation for covering up homosexual predation.

The new bishop, Joseph Brennan, installed just last month, wants the case re-opened and re-examined in light of all the allegations coming to light.

The 1998 claim involved a male teen who lived in the rectory of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Firebaugh in the early 1990s.

He claims Harrison would inspect his genitals each night under the pretext that the examination would reveal whether the boy had done drugs.

The allegation is idential to that of another boy who lived in one of Harrison’s homes for troubled teens.

Church Militant has obtained a 2004 official report issued by former FBI agent Tom Walsh, who learned from a former resident of one of the boys’ homes that “every morning Harrison lined up all the boys who were residing in the house and examined each boy’s testicles with a flashlight. Telling them that by doing this he could tell if any one of them was using narcotics.”

The conduct is also identical to two other accusers who’ve recently stepped forward, saying Harrison would also inspect their genitals citing the same reasons.

Another alleged victim claims Harrison pinned him against the wall and rubbed his erect penis against him.

Most of the alleged victims are Latino males from troubled backgrounds.

The 2004 FBI investigator’s report goes on to detail evidence of at least one suicide of a boy who lived with Harrison. That suicide was independently corroborated by Br. Gilligan.

The report also notes possible financial malfeasance regarding the thousands in funds the priest solicited on behalf of his boys’ homes.

Walsh’s FBI report continues, “I have learned that there never has been an accounting of the funds.  There has never been an itemization as to how the funds were spent and for what end. There has never been identification made of the children that benefited from the solicitations.”

Even today, 15 years on, issues of financial wrongdoing are still in question.

“Father Harrison has a bad gambling problem, allegedly, but this one individual I spoke to said he was with him when Harrison had $40,000 in cash in a fanny pack at a casino,” Brady said. “He said he’s a high roller, he constantly gambles, so one has to wonder where on earth does this money come from?”

Brady has also unearthed a 2004 email from a young man detailing his sexual encounters with Harrison: “I attended St. Joseph’s Church in Firebaugh while Fr. Craig Harrison was pastor. In that time, I personally had two sexual encounters and one semi-sexual encounter with him. Twice in his son Herculano’s bedroom and the other in the back of his Ford Explorer.”

The relationship ended when he walked in on Harrison engaging in gay sex with another man.

When the student confessed his sexual sins to a visiting Franciscan, he was told to remain quiet and “give it to God.”

The student said he knew about nine young men who’d had sex with Harrison.

The letter was sent to then-Vicar General Msgr. Myron Cotta, who served under Bp. Steinbock — but nothing was ever done.

Today the community continues to rally around the priest, parishioners and fellow clergy refusing to believe the allegations, even local media defending him.

Instead, the alleged victims are being blamed.

“Everybody believes the priest, nobody wants to believe this victim. They don’t pick on the judge’s son for a victim,” said Brady. “They pick on homeless kids, they pick on street kids, they pick on the individuals that can’t fight back or don’t have parents who can fight back, so his smearing of those coming forward — I think it’s just standard procedure, it’s a natural defense.”

Sources have told Church Militant even Bakersfield Police are compromised, dragging their feet on removing him as chaplain, even as the abuse allegations come to light.

Church Militant asked the Bakersfield Police Department whether any other police reports had ever been filed against Harrison.

No response to date.

This case parallels the Fr. Robert DeLand case in Saginaw, Michigan, who is now behind bars for homosexual assault.

Like DeLand, Harrison is a longtime priest, enormously popular among locals, raising a lot of money for his diocese.

Just as with DeLand, locals are rallying around Harrison, convinced of his innocence while attacking his victims.

And like DeLand, Harrison is proclaiming his innocence, even in the face of multiple accusers, many of them vulnerable young men with troubled backgrounds whom Harrison ostensibly sought out to help, but who they say became his victims.

In our next installment, another Fresno priest busted for gay predation, removed from ministry, with evidence stretching back decades of homosexual misconduct and financial malfeasance, while the bishop turned a blind eye.

Watch the panel discuss a wayward Fresno cleric and his complicit superiors in The Download—California Homopredator Priest.

Boy & Girl Scouts Trained to Support Terror in Michigan

Boy & girl scouts are supposed to uphold American values. These scout branches in Michigan are being trained to think of the U.S. as terrorists are being indoctrinated in Iranian regime and Hezbollah ideology.

Iranian regime and Hezbollah supporters have set up Boy & and Girl Scout branches in Michigan.

In fact, the Boy Scouts of America website officially recognizes one Islamist-linked Boy Scout pack in the state, listing a Cub Scout branch, Pack 1139, at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center in Dearborn.

Cub Scouts are for children from kindergarten through fifth grade.

In 2017, the Muslim Scouts of Michigan held its Waiyullah Camp where the boys and girls were taught by a radical supporter of the Iranian theocracy and Hezbollah, Sheikh Usama Abdulghani.

The sheikh preaches that Muslims must follow the commands of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He has also said that ISIS is a secret front for Israel and the West as part of their war against Islam.

An older website for the Muslim Scouts of America, last updated in 2014, shows that it previously had a weekly program every Sunday at the Islamic Institute of Knowledge in Dearborn. This mosque has a history of honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and founder of the current theocracy.

The Bint Jebail Cultural Center, which is largely Lebanesesays its Boy Scout branch was started in 1997 “through the Boy Scouts of America.” It was founded by Hajji Khalil Baydoun, the treasurer of the Bint Jebail Cultural Center’s executive board.

In 2001, it took on the name of the Muslim Scouts of Michigan. This development started:

“…bringing our religion and heritage to our scouting program. Although not an Islamic school, this is where our religion is put into practice and carried out on a daily basis through the Scout Law and Oath  … All along this journey to become an Eagle Scout, our religious morals are being instilled and put into action.”

The center’s promo video says it has a class on Saturday for youth to learn Arabic and understand the Koran.

If religion is being integrated into a Boy or Girl Scout program, then it’s reasonable to ask what type of religious interpretation is being taught to these youth, especially when the camping activities include “rifle shooting.”

The Muslims Scouts of Michigan website says its weekly program is held every Friday at Great Revelations Academy in Dearborn. The Academy is literally less than 400 feet from the Bint Jebail Cultural Center responsible for the Muslim Scouts.

The Clarion Project published an expose of the academy’s support for the Iranian theocracy and Hezbollah terrorist group in April. The academy is a private school for children from kindergarten through 9th grade.

Al-Mustapha Scouts

The Muslim Scouts of Michigan also has a branch in the Detroit area called the Al-Mustapha Scouts, chartered by the Al-Mustapha Association.

Though they appear separate at first glance, the Al-Mustapha Girl Scouts’ Facebook page identifies it as part of the Muslim Scouts of Michigan.

Public records from 2017 show that the Muslim Scouts of Michigan and Al-Mustapha Association are essentially the same entity.

Mohamad Awad is listed as the president of the Muslim Scouts of Michigan. Awad is also listed as the director the Al-Mustapha Association and Al-Mustapha Boy Scouts. Additionally, the organizations list the same address in Dearborn in their filings.

The organization claims that the Al-Mustapha Boy Scouts is officially Boy Scouts of America Troop & Pack 1172 and Girls Scouts of the USA Troop 48050, consisting of over 300 girls.

However, the websites for the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the USA do not currently list any such branches. (There is an unconnected Troop 1172 in New Mexico.)

The Al-Mustapha Association makes it clear that its ideology is intertwined with its Boy and Girl Scouts program.

“The Islamic Scouting experience is delivered by a staff carefully selected based on their passion to be Muslim role models and are trained to carry out the core values of Al-Mustapha (s) Scouts,” the website says.

The Al-Mustapha’s Girl Scouts have also held events at the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, yet another mosque with a history of radical preaching including advocacy for the Iranian regime.

A 2013 posting on the mosque’s website advertises an event with the “Muslim Girl Scouts of Southeastern Michigan Troop 48050.”

The Al-Mustapha Scouts have also advertised radical Shiite events on their social media accounts, such as this Mizan Institute event (see right) at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, which has a history of affinity for the Iranian regime, Hezbollah and anti-Semitism.

The instructor at the event promoted by the Al-Mustapha Scouts is Sheikh Amin Rastani, a dedicated supporter of the Iranian theocracy educated at the regime-friendly school in Qom, Iran.

The Al-Mustapha Scout leaders include devotees of the Iranian regime.

One Al-Mustapha Boy Scouts leader has repeatedly posted in favor of the Iranian regime, going so far as to make his profile picture that of Supreme Leader Khamenei.

In one post, at a time when Iranian women were bravely taking off their headscarves in public to protest the mandatory wearing of the hijab, he translated an explanation from Supreme Leader Khamenei justifying the law. It depicted the regime as a bigger supporter of women’s rights than America.

The Khamenei quote he translated and posted reads:

“Every movement that seeks to defend women (e.g. women’s rights) must have its main goal be the chastity of women. The West does not care about the issue of women’s chastity and it has resulted in a mockery … When you look around the world, you see that one of the problems of women in the Western world, especially in the United States of America, is the issue of men exploiting their power to abuse women’s chastity … Islam is aware of this issue, and for that reason, the issue of hijab has been mandated by Islam, for that very reason.”

A second Al-Mustapha Boy Scouts leader also posts videos from Iranian regime officials, including Khamenei and Alireza Panahian, a radical cleric who has called for the execution of major opponents of the regime in Iran.

At least two other Al-Mustapha Boy Scout leaders are seen in a picture with Sheikh Ibrahim Yassine, yet another radical pro-regime cleric.

In a speech from 2016 in Detroit on Al-Quds [Jerusalem] Day, Yassine referred to America as the biggest terrorist in the world and expressed how those who stand with Iran’s leaders stand with truth.

Part of the speech, given in Arabic, was translated by Clarion’s Arab Affairs Analyst and Shillman Fellow Ran Meir:

This American administration is the one that supports terror in our area. We say it out loud and you all know that,” Yassine said. “Imam Khomeini emphasized the importance of participating in Quds Day,” he added.

The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America are meant to be patriotic organizations. The Scout oath includes a pledge to “do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.”

Support for the Iranian regime, Hezbollah and their radical clerics who shout “Death to America” is hardly compatible with the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts’ oath, mission and purpose.

The Boy and Girl Scouts should expel any affiliate or leader linked to such blatant radicalism. Islamist extremists should not be allowed to use the good names of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to push their hate-filled agenda.

These organizations are cynically indoctrinating children to become the next generation of extremists – a real form of child abuse.


Hezbollah & Iranian Tentacles in Michigan

EXCLUSIVE: Michigan Mosques Linked to Iranian Regime

University of Michigan Enabling Terrorist Sympathizers?

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Will Trump Be Impeached? Here’s Everything You Need to Know About the Process

To impeach, or not to impeach? That is the question House Democrats are ferociously debating among themselves as they try to figure out the best way to attack President Donald Trump.

But what exactly is impeachment? And how hard would it be to impeach the president and actually remove him from office?

The average American understandably isn’t an expert on impeachment. Only two presidents have been impeached by the House—Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. But neither man lost his job.

The other day, someone I know who isn’t a lawyer asked me if Trump would go to prison if he were impeached. This question has taken on new prominence since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly told senior House Democrats Tuesday that “I don’t want to see him [Trump] impeached, I want to see him in prison,” according to Politico.

Pelosi knows that impeachment could not result in imprisonment of the president. Her wish, apparently, is to lock him up after he leaves office—preferably after being defeated for re-election next year.

Impeachment is complicated and takes time. Parliamentary democracies can quickly remove a prime minister when a majority of lawmakers cast a vote of no-confidence in the leader. But in the U.S., the impeachment process is a much tougher task to accomplish.

With so much speculation about impeachment in the news, I thought it would be useful to create this primer on the process—let’s call it Impeachment 101. Here’s a Q&A.

What Is Impeachment?

Impeachment has nothing to do with the criminal prosecutions carried out by the U.S. Justice Department for violations of federal law, although such criminal violations may form a basis for impeachment.

Instead, as outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s “Guide to the Constitution,” impeachment is the process set out in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution for Congress to remove from office the president, vice president, and “all civil Officers of the United States” for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There is also a second process that applies only to the president. The 25th Amendment provides for the temporary transfer of the powers of the presidency to the vice president if a president is unable to discharge the duties of his office, such as due to a physical or other disability.

Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment.”

In other words, only the House can pass a resolution of impeachment alleging that a president has committed “high Crimes and misdemeanors.”

Such a resolution, which requires only a simple majority vote, is similar to a criminal indictment by a grand jury—it is an unproven list of charges that a president has engaged in actions that warrant his impeachment.

If the House passes such an impeachment resolution, then the process moves to the Senate. Under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, the Senate has the “sole Power to try all impeachments.”

The Senate, in essence, becomes a trial court with all of the senators sitting as the judge and jury. Based on historic practice, members of the House can act as prosecutors.

It is important to note, however, that it is entirely up to the Senate to decide whether to hold a trial. There is no obligation under the Constitution to do so.

This means that even if the Democratic majority in the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican majority in the Senate could decide to not even consider removing him from office.

House Democrats opposed to impeaching Trump say there is no point in passing an impeachment resolution because it would most likely be dead on arrival in the Senate.

How Does an Impeachment Trial Work?

If the Senate decides to hold an impeachment trial, the Constitution says the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the proceeding. It takes a vote of “two-thirds of the Members present” in the Senate to convict any federal officer subject to an impeachment charge, including the president.

The two-thirds vote to convict means that 67 votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to remove the president and other federal officers from office. That is a very high hurdle that’s probably impossible to leap over in the case of Trump.

Democrats and independents allied with them hold only 47 seats in the Senate—meaning that even if they all voted to convict Trump, they would also need the votes of 20 Republican senators.

Not a single GOP senator has called for Trump to be impeached so far, and the chances of 20 jumping on board the impeachment bandwagon are slim to none.

As mentioned earlier, if a federal officer is convicted by the Senate, it is not a criminal conviction.

The Constitution states that impeachment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

In other words, a federal official can be removed from office. He or she can also be banned from holding any other federal office in the future.

What Happens When a President or Other Official Is Removed?

On the other hand, conviction does not bar the removed official from being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

So a federal official who is impeached, convicted, and removed from office—such as a federal judge or the president of the United States—can then be criminally prosecuted if he has violated a federal law, such as accepting bribes or engaging in treason.

How Is Impeachment Different From a Trial in Court?

The most important point to understand about impeachment is that it is not a legal proceeding like a federal criminal prosecution. And none of the procedural rules that apply to both criminal and civil trials in the federal courts apply.

Other than the constitutional division of labor between the House and Senate, the directive that the chief justice presides when it is the president being impeached, and the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict, it is entirely up to the House and Senate to set the rules for how to proceed with impeachment.

It is also entirely up to Congress to determine what it considers “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that constitute grounds for impeachment.

The Supreme Court—in a 1993 case called Nixon v. United States (a case involving a federal judge named Nixon, not former President Richard Nixon)—held that the impeachment process is a political question. It is not an issue that is reviewable by, or within the jurisdiction of, the federal courts.

How Has Impeachment Been Used in the Past?

During the course of our history, the House of Representatives has impeached 19 federal officials: 15 judges (including Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase), one Cabinet member, one U.S. senator, and Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, according to a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service.

Many people mistakenly believe that President Richard Nixon was impeached. In fact, Nixon resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment, but before a resolution of impeachment could be voted on by the House.

Both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted in their impeachment trials held in the Senate.

Of the 14 other impeachment trials held, only eight resulted in convictions (all of federal judges). The last such trial (which I attended in a Senate hearing room) was of former federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

Porteous was convicted in 2010 by the Senate on four articles of impeachment, including receiving cash and favors from lawyers who were practicing before him and lying to the FBI and the Senate during his nomination process.

What Is an Impeachable Offense?

Impeachment is probably not limited to criminal acts.

Treason and bribery are clearly criminal violations, but the Constitution does not define “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 65 that impeachable offenses would include “the misconduct of public men” or the “abuse or violation of some public trust.”

According to the 2015 Congressional Research Service report, both houses of Congress have in the past “given the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ a broad reading, ‘finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.’”

Is Impeachment Really About the Law or About Politics?

Impeachment is a political process.

If a majority of Americans do not believe that the impeachment of a president is warranted because no actual wrongdoing has occurred, there seems little doubt that members of Congress pushing impeachment will be unsuccessful and may suffer damaging political consequences at the ballot box.

After Republicans tried and failed to remove Clinton through impeachment, they lost seats in Congress in the next election. Democratic opponents of impeaching Trump fear this could happen to them if they impeach him.

The impeachment process was not placed in the Constitution so it could be used for crass, partisan gamesmanship, but was instead created to remedy serious misbehavior by federal officials.

If members of the House and Senate start voting to impeach a president because they simply oppose his policies, we could see a lot more attempts to impeach presidents in the future.

Members of Congress should be wary of abusing the impeachment authority in such a manner, because it could imperil the stability of our constitutional structure by removing a duly elected president.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and whether you support or oppose Trump, you should oppose making impeachment a frequently used move against presidents of the United States. Someday, a president you think is doing a great job could be targeted.

Originally published by Fox News


Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Conservatives Should Take Heart Despite Socialist Upsurge

A Note for our Readers:

America’s trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so, given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C. and across the country.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it’s been painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely only upon the support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

We do this because you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal today.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Good – Short Video on Red Flag Laws

Watch and listen to this short Gun Owners of America video on Red Flag Laws which we now have in Florida codified in the Marjory Stoneman HS Protection Act (SB 7026) as “Risk Protection Orders”.

These laws ignore our 5th and 14th Amendment rights of Due Process and I predict will result in consequences for legal, law abiding gun owners over time. I’m personally not convinced that these are “unintended” consequences either but rather another intentional chipping away of our 2nd Amendment and Due Process Rights.

Gun Owners of America have been outspoken on this subject and I recommend you consider joining GOA as I did several years ago.

I am hopeful an iron-clad lawsuit will be filed before much longer to challenge FL’s Risk Protection Order and; if not eliminating it, as a minimum require holding a hearing before seizure and not exparte except in exceptional cases where there is overwhelming evidence/probable cause of potential harm by the gun owner. As the language is currently written, it is too open to interpretation resulting in differing procedures by different court jurisdictions and potential to be used as a political weapon by liberal gun control enthusiasts.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and want to know where is the NRA-ILA on this issue? So far – Crickets – chirp – chirp.


Why Gun Control Is Wrong Response to Tragic Virginia Shooting

Florida’s “Red-flag” Law Has Red Flags Of Its Own

Red Flag Gun Laws Turn Due Process on Its Head

Response from Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) on Gun Control/Red Flag Laws

Democrats Pursue Voter Fraud Leading Up To 2020

Mark Hemingway at Real Clear Investigations recently wrote a solid piece about the “data problem” with getting clean voter rolls and eradicating voter fraud.

He’s right, there is a data problem. And a management problem. And a competence problem. After all, government runs elections and government is pretty famously awful in all of those categories. But those are manifestations of a deeper problem that is going to dog the country in 2020 and almost assuredly beyond.

One of our two major parties opposes any attempts to enforce voting laws and block illegal voting, and has even begun making overt attempts to create legal voting pathways for non-citizens.

It’s fairly clear that the Democratic Party sees electoral benefit in non-citizens voting, and rightly so because of the gargantuan number of illegal Hispanics in the U.S. and first generation Hispanics are heavily Democratic voters.

Further, Democratic leadership sees a winning issue with the base and some Independents by painting Republicans as racistly trying to suppress the minority vote in their modest attempts to clean up voter rolls — even when those attempts are mandated by law.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is not only supposedly the most moderate among the Democratic presidential candidates, he’s just as quick as any new radical or old school Democrat to play the race card against Republicans.

Race is used dishonestly as a cudgel on virtually any issue. In 2012, speaking to a largely black Virginia audience about Mitt Romney’s plan to allow some deregulation of Wall Street, Biden told the crowd: “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Pretty despicable, but also a hardened part of the Democratic platform in every election — and a real hot-button when connected with voting rights.

Republicans support basic voter identification laws to ensure ballot integrity. You just need to prove who you are to be able to cast that vote. This seems like it should be a bipartisan mom and apple pie issue.

But to Democrats like Biden, who supposedly represents the less radical arm of the Democratic Party, voter ID laws are an opportunity to slap down that tattered race card yet again. They purposely oppose every effort to create clean, up-to-date voter rolls.

Laws vary from state to state, but voter identification laws generally require that identification be presented before a voter reaches the ballot box. In some states, such as Florida where statewide vote margins can be razor thin, the ID must be shown at the polls, while other states only require it for voter registration. But in some states, such as Arizona, any ID, including a utility bill, will do.

Republicans say these laws protect against voter fraud by ineligible voters, including voting by illegal immigrants and double and triple voting.

For Democrats, it’s an opportunity to invigorate racial division and fear mongering. Here’s Biden at it again during a rally last month in South Carolina:

“You’ve got Jim Crow sneaking back in. You know what happens when you (black people) have an equal right to vote? They lose.”

So if Democrats see an opportunity to whip up racial tension among blacks and Hispanics that translate into more votes, they have zero motivation to actually try to ensure ballot box integrity. We’ve seen this recently in multiple states, including Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, where attempts to make sure the voting rolls were cleaned up were met with vitriolic opposition and lawsuits.

The interesting fact is that there is no real evidence that voter ID laws actually suppress the votes of legal voters, including black voters. Even the left-of-center data site FiveThirtyEight substantially concludes this by looking at laws and voter turnout.

So does the left-of-center Brookings Institute in looking at Pennsylvania and Georgia, which both cleaned up their voting rolls prior to the 2018 election. Yet both saw huge jumps in black voter turnout — during a non-presidential midterm election.

“In fact, Georgia is one of the few states where black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in 2018. Moreover, its 2018 black voter turnout of 60 percent exceeded its turnout in the 2016 presidential election by 1 percent,” according to Brookings.

But this record black turnout, exceeding white turnout, does not stop Democrat Stacey Abrams, who lost a close race for Governor, to claim that she is the real winner because of voter suppression that limited the black vote. Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris has said the same thing, both claiming to black audiences that Abrams was robbed of the victory by the GOP.

And of course San Francisco has voted to allow illegal immigrants and other noncitizens to vote in local elections. The fear by illegals that they will be identified by ICE has kept their numbers down, but the city has spent more than $300,000 in voter registration drives aimed at illegal residents. They really, really want illegals voting.

This is the undeniably glaring problem with trying to have clean, legal elections without fraud. Democrats don’t want it. They want both illegal votes of non-citizens, mostly Hispanics, and they want to fear monger blacks into high turnout while voting 90 percent Democrat.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.