Courts & Law Archives - Page 299 of 385

Foreign Nationals Who Were Indicted for Illegally Voting Still on North Carolina’s Voter Rolls

September 6, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Must Read, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

Foreign nationals who were indicted on Aug. 24 for allegedly voting illegally in North Carolina are still on the voter rolls and officials are struggling to take them off.

Eighteen of the 19 individuals who allegedly voted illegally had registered at local Department of Motor Vehicle locations, according to The Washington Times Monday. Four were registered as Republicans, one unaffiliated, and 13 as Democrats.

One of the indicted, Elvis David Fullerton, voted in 16 elections over nearly two decades, according to the Times. Many voted on or before Nov. 8, 2016, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Wake County election officials could not investigate the people who allegedly voted illegally until an “official or formal source” provided notification, according to Wake County Board of Elections Director Gary Sims, the Times reported. The elections board said it will be able to investigate if the Department of Justice provides information on individuals convicted of voter fraud or the indicted admit they are not citizens.

Logan Churchwell of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that focuses on election laws, said election officials need to be more proactive in stopping illegal voting. However, he said officials were in a tough position.

“Federal law did not anticipate this kind of fraud,” Churchwell told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Officials in Wake County may not have the tools to fix the voter registration system or may be “hindered by outdated and increasingly bad laws,” he added.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation wrote in its study “Safe Spaces” that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act makes it easier for noncitizens to register to vote because there are no other verification systems required to be in place.

The National Voter Registration Act was an initiative to ease voter registration and maintenance, according to the DOJ. People could register to vote at the same time they applied or renewed driver’s licenses.

“If a noncitizen checks ‘Yes’ to the citizenship question in any setting, they are simply enrolled without any further verification, even if they presented a Green Card or foreign passport to identify themselves at the time of registration,” the Public Interest Legal Foundation study said.

The August 2018 study looked into noncitizen voting in 13 sanctuary cities and counties across the nation. Over 3,100 noncitizens were registered to vote or were taken off of voter rolls between 2006 and 2018.

Fairfax County in Virginia topped the list of noncitizens removed from voter rolls with 1,334 people.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s suggestions to decreasing noncitizenship voter registration included election officials having access to E-Verify and officials being able to enforce immigration and voting laws.

The study also proposed that states check the citizenship status for new voter registrants through other state databases like a driver’s license customers list. Arizona and Virginia currently employ this system.

“This reform places no upfront burden on new registrants,” the study said.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation uncovered some of the indicted voters in North Carolina, according to the Times.

The 19 who were indicted could face a maximum fine of $350,000 and six years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina reported.

“The State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement is printing signs to be placed at all polling places and early voting sites in the 2018 general election with the goal of notifying individuals who are not eligible to vote before they cast ballots,” Patrick Gannon, public information officer for the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

A spokesperson from the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles told The Daily Caller News Foundation the DMV does not register voters and that people apply to register to vote.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Photo: fstop123/Getty Images.

A Banner Day for Texas Cheerleaders!

September 6, 2018/in Courts & Law, Education, Religion/by Family Research Council

At Friday’s football game, the people of Kountze, Texas will really have something to cheer about. Late last week, after a six-year struggle, the Texas Supreme Court finally put an end to the debate over Bible verses on high school rally banners. It had been a long haul for the families of Kountze, but the seven cheerleaders of 2012 who fought the suit were right: they can do all things through Christ who strengthens them.When the superintendent caved to the bullying tactics of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the cheerleaders and their parents took a stand. Soon, this little town was at the center of a big debate over religious liberty. So big, it turns out, that even former Governor Rick Perry and then-Attorney General Greg Abbott weighed in. In an odd twist, the district fought to keep the challenge alive — even after local courts gave the cheerleaders the green light. That was probably the most infuriating part of the case, at least for local families — that the district is consciously funneling money away from education to fuel this gratuitous attack on faith.

First Liberty Institute represented the seven cheerleaders who made the signs, and the group’s Hiram Sasser celebrated that the journey had finally come to a successful end. “As the football season kicks off across Texas,” he told Fox News’s Todd Starnes, “it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to religious speech on their run-through banners — banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased.”

The cheerleaders who fought back, including Rebekah Richardson who I profiled in my book No Fear, have long since left Kountze High. But the legacy of courage they left behind is something the whole town can be proud of. Because of them, generations of cheerleaders and students will be able to exercise their faith. Sometimes standing up for what you believe in takes time before it pays off. But the lesson here is as clear as it was when I talked to Rebekah in the beginning. If your conviction is rooted in your love for Jesus and obedience to His Word, then you’ve already won — no matter what the earthly outcome.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Left Rushes to Judge Kavanaugh

Americans on Nike Deal: Just Boo It

An Unconscionable Display Of Mockery In The Senate

September 5, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Julio Gonzalez

“An unconscionable, gross, and utter disregard for the institution of the Senate and for the dignity of the Chamber, if there is any such dignity left.”

This is how I characterize the circus that was the opening of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From the very outset, the proceedings played out like a pay-per-view freak show. No sooner had Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, begun calling the meeting to order than the mockery of the confirmation process began. Immediately, Sen. Kamala Harris in an out-of-order rant unbecoming of a grade school student council member, much less a sitting senator, yelled at Grassley, demanding that he delay the proceedings due to the prior night’s release of 42,000 pages of documents relating to the Judge.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., immediately followed with disruptors in the crowd joining in by yelling and screaming at the Republican members of the Committee.

The mood at the dais, which initially appeared to be somewhat relaxed, turned deathly somber as the Democrats continued their disorderly, staged rants, with contributions from Sens. Cory Booker and Mazie Hirono.

I have been watching and participating in legislative proceedings, both at the state and federal levels, for over two decades. Never have I seen a more despicable disregard for the decorum of the United States Senate, nor a greater disrespect for the conduct of the work of serving the American people, than what took place during these hearings.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Like him or not, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an extremely capable judge with an impeccable record of service to this country and to the American people. His pursuit of justice centers on an unmitigated regard for the written law and for the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

I understand that there are many who wish that someone with such a strict interpretive philosophy of the founding documents and statutory language not be admitted entry to the Supreme Court of the United States. But such is not the standard by which a determination is made in considering a presidential nominee.

The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this matter. It is the President who has the authority to nominate members to judicial appointment, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Despite the efforts of the disruptors and Democrats in yesterday’s hearing, it is not up to the Senate to determine the philosophical makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is up to the people of the United States through their election of the President; in this case, Donald J. Trump.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 76 spoke specifically to this point:

“To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. (emphasis added). It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of a favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connections, from personal attachment, or a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is neither the result of a spirit of favoritism, of family connections, or of personal attachment; nor is Kavanaugh a man of unfit character selected from State prejudice. Rather, by all accounts, after review of decades of public work, of over 300 judicial opinions, and of more documents than were available for the last five judicial nominees combined, Judge Kavanaugh demonstrates himself to be an upstanding character of impeccable judgment and standing within his geographical and professional communities.

If the Senate has any regard for its place in American governance, or of the role afforded it by the Constitution of the United States, it would see no viable choice but to approve this nomination; and the Democrats, rather than making a mockery of themselves and of our political system, should acknowledge this.

Yesterday’s display of nonsensical, cheap, political comedy is quite simply the result of one thing, and one thing only: the squeals of pain and immaturity displayed by a political faction intent on keeping its most valuable legislative player, the Supreme Court of the United States, from being removed from the game of inappropriately legislating.

Over the past 100 years, the progressive-infested Supreme Court has single handedly cut down legislation and social norms to suit its agenda. It has done so under the guise of judicial interpretation, but always with an aim at undercutting the legislature’s will, and in so doing, the will of the people of the United States. The fact that this oligarchical monopoly is coming to an end is the source of great angst amongst the liberals in the Senate, but ultimately, it is not in their hands to decide.

That decision fell upon the people of the United States, and they chose Donald J. Trump.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: ‘There has been an Air of Violence, Intimidation, and Lawlessness at the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings’

September 5, 2018/in Courts & Law, Hot Topics, Policy, Politics, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Judicial Watch

f you saw the antics of the leftwing protesters – and Democrat members of the Senate! – at today’s hearing for Judge Kavanaugh…

You know they reached a new low.

And now, your Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, is asking for your help to assure that this fine jurist does not fall prey to the left’s outrageous tactics:

As Tom says in his important video, “There has been an air of violence, intimidation, and lawlessness at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.”

And the assault was led by none other than Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer!

Please help Judicial Watch make certain that Judge Kavanaugh gets the respect – and Senate approval — he deserves.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a protester being escorted out during the Kavanaugh hearing. Photo: Tasos Katopodis/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock.

3 Takeaways From Day 1 of Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Fight

September 5, 2018/in Courts & Law, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by The Daily Signal

The Senate Judiciary Committee kicked off its hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today, and it was no peaceful outing.

The first day of a confirmation hearing is usually placid, with committee members and the nominee offering fairly predictable opening statements before the nominee begins answering senators’ questions on Day Two.

No such luck.

Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, was 30 seconds into his first remarks when committee Democrats began demanding that the hearing adjourn or be postponed until the latest set of documents on Kavanaugh’s record could be studied. Repeated interruptions by both Democratic senators and protesters in the audience moved the hearing steadily off-schedule.

Here are three key takeaways from the first day.

1. 42,000 pages of documents.

Since Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Judiciary Committee has been steadily receiving, reviewing, and releasing documents related to Kavanaugh’s work from the George W. Bush Library and the National Archives. The latest batch of 42,000 pages arrived Monday evening.

Democrats protested that they did not have time to review that material, with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., saying that the hearing should not occur at all until everyone had reviewed every document regarding every segment of Kavanaugh’s career.

Republicans reminded everyone that the public already has available nearly 700 judicial opinions (more than 10,000 pages) that Kavanaugh wrote or joined on the U.S. Court of Appeals; 17,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s non-judicial writings and speeches; and (so far) some 350,000 pages of material related to Kavanaugh’s work as associate independent counsel and associate counsel to the president. This volume of information is more than the previous five Supreme Court nominees combined.

The demand for more documents is unusual not only because the committee has so much other relevant material, but because the senators making this demand had long ago announced their opposition to the nomination. In fact, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did so within hours of Kavanaugh’s nomination on July 9.

2. Competing visions of the rule of law.

Lawyers—especially lawyers who are senators—love the phrase “rule of law,” but that phrase can mean different things to different people.

Many use that phrase only to mean that they like the result of a judge or court’s decisions. Others mean that the law, following an objective set of rules and principles, rather than the judge, must decide cases no matter which side wins or loses.

The opening statements by senators suggested one or another of these visions. So will the questions (and answers) in the next few days. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., put it best when he said, “It’s almost become a cliché but the role of a judge is to say what the law is, not what the law ought to be.”

3. Executive privilege.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., brought up the fact that President Donald Trump invoked executive privilege to block the release of some documents, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., claimed this was the first time this had ever happened in relation to a Supreme Court nomination.

Neither, however, explained why the assertion of executive privilege over these documents was in any way illegitimate or unjustified.

The reason, by the way, that there hasn’t been this much conflict over documents is that senators have previously been much more reasonable in terms of requesting them when legitimate invocations of executive privilege may be involved. For example, when the committee considered President Barack Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan, the committee did not request records from her service as solicitor general under Obama.

The committee will reconvene Wednesday morning at 9:30. That’s when the real fun will begin.

Each senator will have an opportunity to ask Kavanaugh rounds of questions. Some will take the opportunity to probe Kavanaugh about his legal opinions and reasoning, and others will use the time to grandstand, rail against Trump, and rehash old disputes with the President George W. Bush administration.

Instead, they should take this opportunity to help all Americans who are watching to understand our rule of law and how a potential Supreme Court justice approaches the law.

COMMENTARY BY

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: @EHSlattery.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lindsay Graham: ‘Enough already’ from hypocritical Dems

Brett Kavanaugh Refuses to Say There is a So-Called “Right” to Abortion

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

EDITORS NOTE: The feature is image of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 4, 2018 for the opening day of his hearing. (Photo: Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Pope Francis Must Resign: Catholic Civil War

September 4, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Policy, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Church Militant

This turmoil over the homosexual predator clergy cover-up, stretching all the way to Pope Francis, is now being talked about in terms of a civil war in the Church.

Last week, Australian Abp. Mark Coleridge referenced it on his Twitter page, saying he is discouraged by all this tone: “I thought I was beyond being shocked but talk of ‘civil war’ in the Church I find truly shocking, especially in the US where such typology is fraught with fratricidal violence.”

Interesting that Coleridge, a leading homoheretic bishop, would describe himself as being “shocked” because he himself made multiple shocking statements at the 2015 Synod on the Family in Rome, actually hair-splitting over different types of adultery, saying the Catechism needed to be reworded on homosexuality and that the use of contraception was pretty much a personal choice. Here he is at the 2015 Synod complaining about judgmental language.

Archbishop Mark Coleridge: “But at the same time, not every case is the same. And that’s where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the differences in situations. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union, whatever you want to call it, is adulterous, is perhaps too sweeping.”

Coleridge’s comments followed a New York Times op-ed penned by First Things Magazine editor Matthew Schmitz titled “Catholic Civil War,” where Schmitz openly discusses the full-on split which is finally coming into focus in the Church.

The flashpoint for all this is the explosive testimony of Pope Francis’ former Ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, where he calls for Pope Francis and others to resign since they knew about and covered up the depravities of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

Viganò accuses the Pope of reversing sanctions imposed by Benedict and even elevating McCarrick to the status of trusted advisor.

So battle lines are being drawn now over the testimony itself and whether it is credible enough to warrant a full-blown investigation.

Various prelates and their allies are choosing up sides, with some trying to discount it and discredit Viganò while others are going on the record vouching for him and voicing their full-throated support for such an investigation.

In response to all this, Church Militant conducted its own online poll last week and asked two questions related to all this. Here are our admittedly unscientific, yet decidedly lopsided, findings in the first 24 hours:

First Question: Do you believe the charges in Viganò’s testimony are credible?

Six thousand people answered with 99 percent saying yes and just one percent saying no.

Question two: Do you favor a Church-wide investigation based on Viganò’s allegations?

Again 6,000 responded; a whopping 98 percent answering yes, only two percent saying no.

The findings are echoed by Springfield Illinois Bp. Thomas Paprocki who told NBC Chicago a week ago that the allegations can’t be just dismissed — not even by the Vatican.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki: “Even at the level of the Pope, if there are issues of sexual abuse, he can’t say, and others defending him can’t say, ‘He’s got more important things to do.'”

Paprocki insists that, given Viganò’s deep knowledge and experience, his charges need a full airing.

This turmoil over the homosexual predator clergy cover-up, stretching all the way to Pope Francis, is now being talked about in terms of a civil war in the Church. Tweet

Bishop Thomas Paprocki: “I don’t know why he’d be saying these things unless he believed they were true. He was in a position, certainly, to know a lot of the things he was talking about.”

All of this, recall, revolves around earth-shattering revelations from this past June that former Prince of the Church, Cdl. Theodore McCarrick, had been a serial rapist of seminarians for decades and in at least one case — even minors — and multiple Church leaders knew all about it.

Bishop Steve Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, a community for former Anglican clergy and laypeople within the Catholic Church had this revealing recent comment about who knew what.

Bishop Steve Lopes: “I’ll tell you what response I think is not good enough. It’s the parade of cardinals and bishops who have rushed to the television cameras, clutching their pectoral crosses saying, ‘I knew nothing.’ I don’t believe it, and I am one of them. I don’t believe it. Because, as one of the youngest bishops in the conference, you do get an interesting perspective, like for the fact that I was a seminarian when Archbishop McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark, and he would visit the seminary often — and we all knew.”

So what is now developing very quickly are two distinct camps around Viganò’s statement.

Those who want to bury it and Viganò along with it. And those calling for a full investigation of the explosive charges. Those publicly announcing their support in favor of a full-blown investigation include:

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, speaking as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, officially asking the Pope to begin the investigation.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, former chief canonist for the Church.

Archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone.

Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois — as stated earlier.

Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison Wisconsin who issued a blistering statement on all this evil.

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who was among the first to respond.

Phoenix, Arizona Bishop Thomas Olmsted who said Viganò is trustworthy.

And Tulsa Oklahoma Bishop David Konderla.

And more bishops and archbishops are adding their voices to the call for a full investigation.

Additionally, as battle lines in the Church’s civil war are drawn much more clearly and various groups are choosing up sides, many faithful Catholic media outlets and non-media apostolates are also on board calling for full transparency and accountability.

Obviously, Church Militant is in this group, along with the Lepanto Institute, Regina Magazine, LifeSiteNews and so forth.

On the opposite side are those who want to kill any investigation before it even gets started, fearful that further exposure would completely derail their heterodox agenda of bringing revolution to the Church.

And just as on the faithful Catholic side. There are on the non-faithful side — clergy and non-clergy, media and non-media groups.

Among the clergy wanting this to scandal to be covered up and forgotten is almost the entire senior leadership of the Church in America, who, perhaps given their high rank, have the most to lose or cover up; men like:

Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich, implicated in Viganò’s testimony, was among the first to dismiss the charges against the Pope, doubling down in an NBC News interview saying the Pope had more important things to do than worry about predatory clergy raping seminarians and children and covering up for one another.

After being roundly mocked for his comments, with some even calling for his immediate resignation for placing talking environmentalism above investigating sex abuse, Cupich has since complained that his interview was dishonestly edited.

Church Militant reached out to NBC Chicago who issued an official statement in response, saying, “We believe our story to be accurate in that Cardinal Cupich was referring to the memo about sexual abuse allegations in question.”

Newark, New Jersey Cardinal Joseph Tobin, implicated in Viganò’s testimony as a member of the homosexual network, is another American cardinal not wanting any investigation to commence, owing largely to him being outed personally by Viganò.

Tobin appears to have an on-going serious problem with transparency — especially regarding him — coming under fire recently for telling his priests not to talk to the media.

His orders came after six of his priests went to Catholic media complaining of a rampant homosexual subculture in the seminary and archdiocese, unsurprising since it was the former archdiocese of Theodore McCarrick.

Tobin said he knew nothing about any such homosexual clerical culture, which is surprising, again, because it was previously Theodore McCarrick’s archdiocese.

Yet to voice support for an investigation, keeping quiet and staying out of the range of fire for now, are Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley — close papal confidante — who is currently dealing with the headache of an investigation into predatory homosexuality inside his own archdiocese’s seminary.

And Cdl. Timothy Dolan of New York — also missing in action for most of this, strange for one of the most outspoken senior churchmen in America.

The New York archdiocese was the center of the storm initially when it was that archdiocesan review board which made the announcement of credible charges against McCarrick.

Dolan’s chancery is crawling with homosexual and homosexualist clergy, many put in place by another American Cardinal, Edwin O’Brien, whom Viganò also exposed in his statement as being part of the homosexual network in Rome and the United State.

O’Brien groomed and promoted current known homosexual leaders in New York while he was rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary in the 1980s and protected them every step of the way, including disgraced priest Fr. Peter Miqueli, who has disappeared after being outed with a gay for pay prostitute who was also O’Brien’s chauffeur when O’Brien visited Maqueli in New York.

But the cone of silence and ongoing resistance to transparency doesn’t stop with cardinals.

San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy has perhaps the harshest words about Viganò’s testimony, saying, “In its hatred for Pope Francis and all that he has taught, Archbishop Viganò consistently subordinates the pursuit of comprehensive truth to partisanship, division and distortion.”

McElroy has been at the forefront of pushing the gay agenda in the Church, writing off faithful Catholics as a cancer in the Church and holding a diocesan synod in 2016 where he said sometimes our conscience leads us to do the opposite of what the Church teaches.

San Diego Catholics are planning a protest of their bishop, who knew about McCarrick’s sexual crimes since at least 2016, when renowned sex abuse expert Richard Sipe sent him a letter graphically detailing his misconduct, which McElroy chose to ignore.

In the diocese of Metuchen, another diocese where McCarrick was in charge and secret payouts were made to cover his homosexual assaults, Bp. Paul Bootkoski, who signed the checks covering up for McCarrick, is also rejecting Viganò’s testimony, claiming he did nothing wrong and followed all the right protocols when making the secret settlement with seminarian victims of McCarrick’s depravity.

Viganò said Bootkoski “covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.”

And of course, the on-going case of Cdl. Donald Wuerl.

The anti-investigation, anti-transparency crowd has circled the wagons around Wuerl, realizing if he falls, it will be a mighty splash.

Wuerl is deeply associated with McCarrick in many different projects and agendas, even assuming his Washington, D.C. archdiocese when the perverted cardinal stepped down in 2006.

Intrepid bulldog reporter George Neumayr, a regular Church Militant associate, tracked down the D.C. house where McCarrick is hiding out and had an on-camera confrontation with D.C. archdiocese Communication Director Ed McFadden:

George Neumayr: “Can we, can we, can we interview Theodore McCarrick? … He’s at the center of this story. We demand — we need answers from Theodore McCarrick. We want to know from Theodore McCarrick if Cdl. Wuerl knew about his misconduct. We deserve answers, the abuse victims deserve answers, Ed. The abuse victims deserve answers. Ed, you need to be honest, OK? Be honest. Don’t give me corporate speak, be honest, be honest, OK? Is Teddy McCarrick in that house? … You’re lying.”

Many of these high-profile American chuchmen are staunch allies of Pope Francis’ theological agenda — Cupich even calling it a revolution.

Yet the resistance to transparency and full accountability doesn’t end with the Pope’s American cardinals and bishops.

Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, nicknamed the Vice Pope for his level of influence over Pope Francis, just recently slammed multiple calls for the Pope’s resignation as a sin against the Holy Spirit — an unforgivable sin.

This is the same cardinal who protected right-hand man and longtime friend, Bp. Juan Pineda, for decades, who was forced to step down just two months ago after many seminarians accused him of sexually assaulting them — something Pope Francis has still not done anything about.

In the battle to win the PR campaign in the civil war, the anti-transparency team has multiple weapons.

In addition to their high offices, they also have various communications organs to keep spreading their disinformation and attacks against Viganò.

They were the very first to come out and provide a platform to Donald Wuerl to defend his cover-ups in the wake of the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

In addition to the actual propaganda outlets we just highlighted, there are the people behind those outlets as well as other groups who are now losing whatever credibility they once possessed.

Father James Martin is painting this scandal as just another witch hunt for gay priests, blaming Viganò’s testimony as being rife with homophobic language. Tweet

Father Martin was, of course, called out by Viganò as the poster boy for the deviant wing of the Jesuits, the priest propped up by pro-gay prelates like Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy.

Left-wing Catholic Austen Ivereigh is busy defending the Pope’s non-response, writing an article today titled “A Time to Keep Silence,” saying there are deeper spiritual reasons for the Pope’s refusal to answer Viganò’s charges, while dismissing critics’ reactions as “verging on hysteria.”

Ivereigh, former deputy editor of the liberal “Catholic” rag,

The Tablet, the British version of the United States-based National Catholic Reporter would have to extend his claim of hysteria to various Cardinals and bishops calling for an investigation.

And then there is John Allen, former writer for the condemned National Catholic Reporter, who attempts to hold himself forth as above the fray, showed his cards when he fired the opening salvo against Viganò, saying in an article the day after Viganò’s testimony was published that it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

In a recent analysis, Allen buries in the last paragraph the most significant piece of news, that Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Bishops, has asked the Pope to launch an investigation into sex abuse cover-up in America.

Although he sent the request going on 10 days ago, as of today, the Pope has yet to respond.

Leftwing Villanova professor Massimo Faggioli is continuing his attacks on Viganò’s supporters, dismissing them as alt-right, saying, “I am afraid alt-right figures are using this Viganò and not only as an opportunity to destroy the institution in order to gain control of it. Turn bishops against one another. Get the laity to mistrust the leaders and work for their demise.”

Cindy Wooden, who conducted the softball interview with Cdl. Kevin Farrell, where he said he was shocked by the allegations against his former housemate McCarrick, tried to discredit Viganò by releasing a 2012 video where Viganò is seen praising McCarrick, six months after Benedict had allegedly imposed sanctions.

Father Thomas Rosica, a homosexualist cleric who threatened to sue a lowly Canadian blogger for criticizing him, is another on the list of cover-up clerics.

From his leadership of the much-hyped, no substance Salt and Light TV in Canada, he as been such a cheerleader for Pope Francis that he actually came out and said Pope Francis is not bound by either Scripture or tradition and doesn’t need to be.

Rosica has, unsurprisingly, not called for any investigation into the charges of a homosexual network in Viganò’s statement.

And then there is the case of Jim Towey, president of Ave Maria University in Florida, who is painting the scandal as nothing more than a rift between Pope Francis and his conservative critics, dismissing the pain and suffering of multiple victims of homosexual predation in seminaries and parishes.

In a statement last week, Towey said, “The release of the Archbishop’s manifesto seemed timed to inflict the maximum damage possible to the Pope’s credibility, and the choreographed chorus of support by others in league with them, was just as troubling.”

Towey has an important connection to disgraced Cdl. Donald Wuerl. In a 2011 article talking about taking his job at Ave Maria, Towey wrote, “My local bishop, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, twisted my arm a little bit when I was discerning to take the job. That, to me, is a good sign that so much of America’s Church leadership is excited about Ave Maria.”

After receiving extreme blowback for his critique, Towey walked them back a bit.

Critics of Wuerl have noted that part of his machinations is to place stooges in relatively visible positions in the Church so he will have conservative-sounding voices to defend him if and when the need were ever to arise.

One of those is, of course, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League, who Wuerl engineered to be in control of the do-little organization who he could control — with a $500,000 a year paycheck.

Donohue is busy defending his friend Wuerl, dismissing the furor over the sex abuse scandals as overwrought, saying angry Catholics are being played, insisting we must all just calm down and recognize that all of this is in the past and the Church is doing marvelously now.

Like Donohue, Towey also gets paid handsomely as president of Ave Maria University, all of these institutional types pulling down hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay.

All of this being played against the backdrop of multiple discussions going on in D.C. about possible RICO violations, as well as various states’ attorneys general announcing their own Pennsylvania-style investigations.

If something like that unfolds, and indications are right now the wheels are already in motion, then the Catholic civil war stalemate just might be broken by states or even the federal government stepping in demanding answers and serving warrants to gain access to the secret file of various dioceses.

Right now, faithful Catholics are of the mind to say, do whatever needs to be done to break this stranglehold the homoheresy has on the Church.

Whatever is left after the state is done, will be a stronger more pure Church, one free of civil war after all these decades.

Our Historic Moment to Build a Pro-2A Supreme Court Majority

September 4, 2018/in Courts & Law, Elections, Gun Rights, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

“Our time is now. This our historic moment to go on offense and restore American greatness… and put a pro-Second Amendment majority on the Supreme Court that will defend individual freedom for generations to come.” —Wayne LaPierre

VIDEO: There Were No FISA Court Hearings on Carter Page Warrants

August 31, 2018/in Courts & Law, Featured, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Judicial Watch

No wonder the Deep Staters plotting the overthrow of Donald Trump were able to get as far as they did. The secret court meant to protect all of us from the government’s massive spy machinery was asleep at the switch. At least, I hope that’s all it was.

In response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted in a court filing last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.

[National Security Division] FOIA consulted [Office of Intelligence] … to identify and locate records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request…. [Office of Intelligence] determined … that there were no records, electronic or paper, responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request with regard to Carter Page. [Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.

The warrants were first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times.

The Department of Justice previously released to us the heavily redacted Page warrant applications. The initial Page FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election.

The DOJ filing is in response to our lawsuit for the FISA transcripts (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01050)).

In February, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released a memo criticizing the FISA targeting of Carter Page. The memo details how the “minimally corroborated” Clinton-DNC dossier was an essential part of the FBI and DOJ’s applications for surveillance warrants to spy on Page.

We recently filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking the transcripts of all hearings related to the surveillance of Carter Page.

It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team.

Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.

Most School Shootings in Federal Report Just Didn’t Happen

This is one for the annals of fake news. A federal agency is blundering around with erroneous but inflammatory data on a major topic of national contention, it gets called out by a government-supported news outlet … and it does nothing about it. Our Corruption Chronicles blog peeks into the window of this fun house.

In an amusing story, a government-funded media outlet notorious for its liberal slant found that the overwhelming majority of school shootings listed in a federal report never occurred. The embarrassing blunder involves Department of Education (DOE) figures stating that schools around the U.S. reported an alarming 235 shootings in one year.

National Public Radio (NPR) launched an investigation and actually contacted every one of the schools included in the DOE data, which was gathered by its Office for Civil Rights. The figures focus on the 2015-2016 school year and reveal that “nearly 240 schools…reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.”

Three months later, after every school was contacted by NPR, the stats changed drastically. More than two-thirds of the reported gun incidents never happened, according to the news outlet. “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports,” the article states. “In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.” A program director at the nonprofit research organization that assisted NPR in analyzing the bogus government data is quoted in the piece saying: “When we’re talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful.”

Even though the DOE is the agency responsible for disseminating the erroneous information, in typical government fashion, it shrugged it off as no big deal. When asked for comment by reporters, the agency said it relies on school districts to provide accurate information. Evidently, the federal agency doesn’t bother checking data before publishing it as fact. In the meantime, the DOE has no plans to correct the errors. The article points out that the confusion comes at a time when the need for clear data on school violence has never been more pressing. Dozens of school safety measures have been enacted nationwide on the heels of high-profile school shootings in Texas and Florida and public districts are allocating large sums to boost campus security. “Our reporting highlights just how difficult it can be to track school-related shootings and how researchers, educators and policymakers are hindered by a lack of data on gun violence,” the NPR piece reads.

This is hardly an isolated incident of government inefficiency, but the seriousness of the matter should inspire the feds to provide the public—and policy makers—with accurate information. Instead, the DOE, a typical bloated agency with a $59 billion budget, passed the buck to the so-called civil rights data collection division which apparently plays fast and loose with facts. In the report with the skewed stats, schools were asked: “Has there been at least one incident at your school that involved a shooting (regardless of whether anyone was hurt)?” The DOE should have known better than to blindly publish the information. All it had to do was check out the easily available figures provided by a reputable group that maintains a reliable gun safety database. For the same school year that the DOE listed 235 shootings, the group had only 29. “There is little overlap between this list and the government’s, with only seven schools appearing on both,” the NPR story says.

Portland Mayor Endorses an Attack on Law Enforcement

There is a dangerous lawlessness among leftist politicians and activists. And, in the case of Portland, it is putting at risk the safety of law enforcement. Here’s the latest outrage from Portland, courtesy of Judicial Watch’s Corruption Chronicles blog:

During aggressive protests by criminal Occupy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rioters at federal facilities in Oregon, Portland’s Mayor implemented dangerously restrictive police procedures that ordered officers to ignore calls for help from federal law enforcement personnel under attack.

Instead of proactive support, Portland Police Bureau (PPB) were limited to a passive “liaison” role with the Federal Protection Service (FSP). According to records obtained by Judicial Watch, PPB officers were only allowed to respond to life-threatening attacks and 911 calls made by ICE agents and FPS officers. Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler also serves as the city’s Police Bureau Commissioner. Wheeler has been a vocal proponent in his commitment to protect criminal illegal aliens, restrict gun rights and support burdensome climate policies. Under his direction, tensions among protestors and federal law enforcement officers started in mid-Junewith a camp at ICE facilities in the downtown area and ended in late July with piles of trash in the street. ICE Council leadership reported hard-left Antifa members were an active contingent among protestors who besieged the federal immigration processing offices, damaged property and injured officers.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch indicate an alarming hands-off approach instituted by PPB management. On June 19, FPS Commander Lopez asked PPB Deputy Chief Robert Day for assistance. Day’s refusal in the highly redacted document was clear: “At this time I am denying your request for additional resources from PPB.” Officers were directed “not to proactively patrol the area of the demonstration” and to “only respond to calls at the demonstration site that have an immediate life safety concern.” On June 21, the mayor’s direction was “for PPB to not get involved unless lives are in danger.” ICE agents on the ground reported these were the daily orders given at briefings to rank-and-file PPB personnel.

Mayor Wheeler’s selective enforcement order conflicts with PPB rules. The Biased-Based Policing Policy states, “The Bureau is dedicated to offering courteous and professional service delivery and providing equal protection, a fundamental right under the Constitution, to all members of the community.” Additionally, all employees are expected to “reduce crime and the fear of crime by working with all citizens.” Police officers and managers are mandated to “respond to requests for police assistance.” Law enforcement sources familiar with the situation communicated, “When local police disengage from proactive responsibilities and assistance, one can expect masked, helmeted and shielded protestors to assault and endanger federal officers.” On July 31 the National ICE Council sent a cease and desist letter to the Mayor.

In contrast to the stated commitment of city government to provide equal and effective protection, the owner of the ICE processing building, Stuart Lindquist, was singled out among taxpayers. He received a limited and restrictive law enforcement response during the Occupy ICE demonstrations. Portland Police documents confirmed, “If Stuart Linquist [sic] or any other Linquist [sic] calls for police assistance that doesn’t fit the ‘life safety concern’ criteria, please refer him or her to the Mayor.” Mr. Lindquist told Judicial Watch, “It’s quite an issue and of course we were without service for a month and a half. It’s something. This is a liberal town but even so.” Judicial Watch filed two other public records requests with the PBB to determine if Wheeler’s denial of assistance violates federal contractual or Memorandum of Understanding obligations.

Christian Cake Baker Turns the Tables, Sues Colorado for Anti-Religious Bias

August 30, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and is himself a master baker. He’s in trouble with the state of Colorado for declining to create a custom cake for an event because doing so would violate his religious beliefs.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because Phillips has already taken a similar case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor on June 4.

Here’s the background.

In 2012, Phillips declined the request by a same-sex couple marrying in Massachusetts that he create a custom cake for their reception in Colorado.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in a ruling affirmed by the state courts, concluded that Phillips violated a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in businesses and other places of public accommodation.

The case, as the Supreme Court would describe it, presented a conflict between the government’s authority to protect individuals against discrimination and “the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.”

This conflict is recurring, in different settings, more and more often.

To understand this conflict properly requires focusing on the reason that Phillips declined to make this particular cake. He has no desire to discriminate against LGBTQ people; in fact, his shop welcomes everyone as customers, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Instead, he claimed only that being required to use his personal skills to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding forced him to have a role in that event in violation of his religious beliefs.

Advocates wanted the Supreme Court to announce a rule that would tip the scales in these cases. One side wanted the court to say that the Constitution guarantees a win for religious business owners. The other side wanted the justices to say that state anti-discrimination laws always prevail, even in these narrow circumstances.

Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, often prefer not to push the legal envelope very far, especially when volatile issues are involved. Here, the Supreme Court decided in Phillips’ favor without establishing an across-the-board rule.

Instead of focusing on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actual decision against Phillips, the high court focused on how the commission reached that decision.

There was clear—even shocking—evidence that commission members exhibited “clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection,” the court said.

Overt statements by commissioners, as well as treating Phillips’ objection differently than similar objections in other cases, were “inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

This was a significant decision for several reasons. First, it recognized that conflicts like this involve a person’s “sincere religious beliefs.” Second, it reaffirmed that the right of each individual to exercise religion is a fundamental constitutional right. Third, it exposed ugly, anti-religious bias by a government agency and held that the First Amendment guarantees freedom from such bias.

Since the Supreme Court did not settle this conflict once and for all with an all-encompassing rule, additional cases will help fill in the blanks and, hopefully, pave the way to more robust protection for the exercise of religion.

That includes Phillips’ new case.

In June 2017, a lawyer named Autumn Scardina asked Phillips to create a custom cake celebrating his transition from male to female. When Phillips declined, on the same grounds as he had before, Scardina filed a discrimination complaint.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that Phillips had again violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

Rather than wait for the entire process to play out, however, Phillips took the initiative and filed a federal lawsuit.

Assisted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Phillips’ lawsuit makes four legal claims. First, he alleges that the government violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion by targeting, showing hostility toward, and discriminating against him based on his religious beliefs and practices.

That’s the most important issue, and it picks up where Phillips’ first case left off. While his first case involved specific acts of anti-religious hostility by individual persons, Phillips is alleging that the government is hostile to religion in a more general way.

Second, he alleges that the government violated his First Amendment right to free speech by forcing him to “create and disseminate expression that violates [his] religious beliefs.”

Third, he contends that the government violated his 14th Amendment right to due process by the “unfair and biased” way that it enforced the law against him.

And fourth, he argues that the government violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection by treating his religiously motivated decision differently than those of others.

When Phillips declined to participate in an event that would violate his personal religious beliefs, he was not discriminating against the couple.

There is no reason that the Constitution’s protection for individuals who wish to live their faith and laws prohibiting discrimination against groups of people in the marketplace cannot coexist.

Those who regularly defend religious freedom know that this is a marathon, not a sprint. Each case that exposes government hostility toward religious belief and practice challenges us to take our individual rights more seriously.

COMMENTARY BY

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who was targeted a second time by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, less than two months after his Supreme Court victory. (Photo: Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom)

The Deeper Crisis: Abuse of Authority

August 30, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Catholic Thing

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek: The passivity of some bishops on sex abuse is itself an abuse of power that denies justice and charity to the people of God.

Countless voices are being raised among bishops, priests, and laity calling for credible investigations of the McCarrick scandal, sexual abuse cover-ups, and the crisis in sexual morality, particularly regarding homosexual activity among the clergy. Those issues warrant detailed examination, especially in light of the New Paradigm for morality advocated by leading prelates, which accommodates contraception, homosexual and other extra-marital sexual activity, and remarriage.

The astonishing allegations of Archbishop Viganò, however, direct us to a much deeper crisis than sexual sins and false theology: the abuse of pastoral authority, both by clerical abusers and the bishops who fail to protect the flock.

To say that clerical abuse is about authority rather than lust doesn’t exclude the role sexuality can play, but links that gratification to the exercise of power. For clergy, authority is rooted in their sacramental office as shepherds of Jesus’ flock. Predatory clerics and the bishops who failed to vindicate victims are guilty, therefore, not only of the misuse of office, but the abuse of a spiritual relationship. They are fathers and brothers, images of Christ, who violated the trust of God’s people coming to them for support and protection.

Whether the abusers and the bishops acted sinfully, that is, with full knowledge and freedom, is an important matter. The central issue, however, is that their actions caused grave injury to the members of the Body of Christ. Justice and charity demand that the damage be investigated and remedied to the extent possible, not just forgiven. This can include the offender’s removal from office.

Many cases of clerical abuse and of episcopal failure were not isolated events, accounted for by saying, “we all sin and make mistakes.” These were established patterns of destructive behavior that had become second nature to the abuser or the bishop. Such habits are called vices. They are deep-seated dispositions for continual bad behavior that indicate a state of corruption or dysfunction.

Repeat abusers are unwilling or unable to alter their behavior in a way that would surrender the power they use to gratify themselves. Thus, until their vicious dispositions change, they will not take steps to restore justice and charity. They may mouth various acts of regret or amendment of life, but these are done only to repair their status.

The Merchants Chased from the Temple (Les vendeurs chassés du Temple) by J.J. Tissot, c. 1890 [Brooklyn Museum]

This is why the role of the bishops is paramount. It falls to them to find an effective means of providing a just and charitable outcome for the victim and, in that context, for the perpetrator as well. Here is where too many bishops revealed their own corruption or dysfunction, compounding the injury by their misuse of episcopal authority. This explains why victims, their families, laypeople, and clerics have at times also felt abused by bishops – or even by Vatican officials.

Some of the bishops who repeatedly failed claimed that, decades ago, they treated abuse as sin. That’s not true. Had they treated it as sin, they would have required the perpetrator to admit the wrong, make restitution to his victim (financially and in other ways), do penance, and amend his life. They would then have recognized a repetition not as a “lapse,” but as a sign of a vicious habit which was compulsive or willful. In either case, concern for the well-being of the faithful and the priest should have led to no further assignments.

Other bishops who failed claimed that more recently they treated abuse like a disease. That’s unlikely. Treatment plans usually called for supervision and on-going care. In cases of repeated abuse, bishops often didn’t ensure those steps were diligently followed.

A far larger number of bishops failed by not cultivating an environment in which clergy or laity could approach them with concerns. Admittedly this changed after 2002 so that at least allegations of abuse of minors were received. But with rare exceptions, such as the Diocese of Tyler, there haven’t been policies that require reporting other clerical violations of Christian faith and morals, such as false teaching, sexual relations with men or women, financial abuse of the parish or individual parishioners, addiction to alcohol or pornography, etc.

It must be recognized, then, that diocesan or Vatican bishops who repeatedly fail to vindicate victims exposed to various forms of clerical abuse demonstrate a level of corruption or dysfunction that itself constitutes an abuse of power. These failures are much more than mistakes. Such behavior has become second nature to these bishops in the administrative exercise of their office.

During the decades of the abuse crisis, neither the bishops nor the Holy See has provided effective accountability for corrupt or dysfunctional bishops. Some claim the bishops lack authority in this area, yet nothing prohibits their presenting a policy to Rome. This passivity, too, is an abuse of power that denies justice and charity to the people of God. It creates a situation that makes it difficult for even a Vatican investigation to be considered credible.

In the McCarrick scandal, the bishops of Newark and Metuchen knew the allegations concealed by the settlements. Yet Cardinal Wuerl insists no one warned him – which, if true, means the Vatican also kept quiet. If so, their cover-up prevented finding and helping seminarians and priests exploited by the ex-cardinal. It also enabled the retired McCarrick to fraternize routinely with seminarians. In an indirect way, Wuerl’s account, then, alleges an abuse of power by bishops in the United States and Rome as disturbing as Viganò’s charges.

We must credibly investigate abusers like McCarrick, the crisis of sexual morality linked to the New Paradigm, and the bishops who have enabled these and other outrages against God’s people. Wuerl’s and Viganò’s claims require us to examine the nuncios and the curia. But we must go further. To confront the abuse of pastoral authority, we must establish effective means of reporting, investigating, and correcting violations of Catholic faith and morals by Church personnel, from part-time volunteers to the bishops themselves. Justice and charity demand it. So too does Jesus, the ultimate victim – and judge – of all this abuse.

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently pastor of parishes in Gatesville and Hamilton. His doctoral studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Embattled Pope Francis ‘Has No Intention’ of Stepping Down and Is ‘Embittered’ by Viganò Letter

The Vatican Is Using Bill Clinton’s Playbook To Defend Pope Francis

Cover-up claims grow after tell-all letter published

RELATED VIDEO: Keri Brunor, whistleblower of the Catholic Church.

EDITORS NOTE: © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Senate Ramping Up Trump Judicial Confirmations This Week

August 29, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Since March, Senate Democrats have forced 30 hours of debate on each of five of President Donald Trump’s federal district court judge nominees subsequently approved with at least 95 votes.

District court judges—the first jurists to rule on often contentious cases—have been stalled, but Senate Republicans plan this week to keep the Senate in session long enough to confirm a dozen of them before Labor Day.

Of the 179 current and known future federal court vacancies, 160 are on district and specialty courts, according to the Judicial Crisis Network, which monitors judicial appointments.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced the Senate will stay in session ahead of the holiday week to vote on 12 judicial nominees and on other appointees.

“Currently before us are nominees to be an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, a vice chairman for the Federal Reserve, important posts at the departments of Justice and Treasury, and a slate of impressive nominees for the federal judiciary,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Richard Clarida, of Connecticut, to be vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for a term of four years. The vote was 69-26.

“I hope we can continue to make progress,” McConnell said.

The slowdown is a result of Senate Democrats’ requiring 30 hours of debate for every nominee, even those who clear the Judiciary Committee unanimously or nearly unanimously. The tactic forcing a cloture vote to cut off debate is used because Democrats can no longer filibuster nominees.

McConnell noted in a tweet last week how many Trump nominees have been stalled, compared with past presidents.

Trump has 80 pending district and specialty court nominees awaiting Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, and 26 more awaiting a Senate floor vote.

“There is a vacancy crisis at the district court level,” Thomas Jipping, deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Historically, this tactic has only been used for the most controversial nominees. Now, it’s only being used to delay and gum up the works.”

It used to require 60 votes to stop a Senate filibuster and move to a floor vote on a judicial nominee. But in 2013, the then-Democratic majority in the Senate did away with the filibuster for district and appeals court judges and executive branch nominees.

During the 2017 confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Republican majority also eliminated the filibuster for high court nominees. So, the cloture procedure has become the delaying tactic of choice.

Thus far, 110 Trump nominees have been stalled by the Democratic tactic.

It would require votes on at least 10 judges per week for the rest of the year to confirm all of Trump’s nominees for the district and circuit courts, Jipping said. He said it’s possible the Senate would take action in a lame-duck session after the November midterm elections.

The Senate will be voting on the following judicial nominees this week, according to McConnell’s office:

Terry Fitzgerald Moorer, of Alabama, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Southern District of Alabama.
R. Stan Baker, of Georgia, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Southern District of Georgia.
Charles Barnes Goodwin, of Oklahoma, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Barry W. Ashe, of Louisiana, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
James R. Sweeney II, of Indiana, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Southern District of Indiana.
Susan Paradise Baxter, of Pennsylvania, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Marilyn Jean Horan, of Pennsylvania, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
William F. Jung, of Florida, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Middle District of Florida.
Dominic W. Lanza, of Arizona, to be a U.S. district court judge for the District of Arizona.
Charles J. Williams, of Iowa, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Robert R. Summerhays, of Louisiana, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Louisiana.
Alan D. Albright, of Texas, to be a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Texas.

Senate Republicans have prioritized confirming appeals court nominees, which are more likely to decide on constitutional issues. Still, the majority of legal cases are decided at the district court level, and most aren’t accepted on appeal.

Large vacancy rates have a big impact on the administration of justice, noted Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group.

In the past year and a half, district judges also played a significant role in blocking much of the president’s policies on border enforcement, restricting travel into the United States from certain countries, and restricting funding for cities that don’t assist in federal immigration enforcement, he said.

“District judges can yield enormous power against everything President Trump does, and slow down his policies for a couple of years,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “More confirmations mean there is less chance of a ‘resistance’ judge.”

The Senate also will be voting on the following executive branch nominees, according to McConnell’s office:

Lynn A. Johnson, of Colorado, to be assistant secretary for family support, Department of Health and Human Services.
Joseph H. Hunt, of Maryland, to be an assistant attorney general.
Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas, of Pennsylvania, to be assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis, Department of the Treasury.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Kavanaugh Rules by the Law, Even in Tough Cases

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Senate Republicans holding a press conference after a policy luncheon Tuesday at the Capitol. McConnell vowed to confirm 12 of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees this week. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

David and Goliath in the Court of Public Opinion

August 28, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Linda Goudsmit

The Goliath narrative in 1 Samuel 17 opens with the Philistine army gathered for war against Israel.

“Saul and the Israelites are facing the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. Twice a day for 40 days, morning and evening, Goliath, the champion of the Philistines, comes out between the lines and challenges the Israelites to send out a champion of their own to decide the outcome in single combat, but Saul is afraid. David, bringing food for his elder brothers, hears that Goliath has defied the armies of God and of the reward from Saul to the one who defeats him, and accepts the challenge. Saul reluctantly agrees and offers his armor, which David declines, taking only his staff, sling and five stones from a brook.”

David and Goliath, perhaps the greatest underdog story ever told, is the biblical saga of the young Israelite shepherd David challenging the giant Philistine Goliath. Tales of this long shot contest have thrilled audiences since biblical times because it features the arrogance of the unbeatable, armored “sure thing” against the boldness of the challenger armed only with a sling shot.

David is not intimidated when the towering, smug giant criticizes, taunts, insults, threatens, and laughs at him. So it is in politics!

Today the deep state giant Goliath has waged war against America and the only American with the courage to stand against this behemoth to preserve and protect the nation is unlikely combatant President Donald J. Trump.

Since announcing himself as a presidential candidate on June 15, 2016, President Trump has been the target of the well-defended, smug, seemingly indestructible deep state Goliath. The deep state and the colluding mainstream media have maligned him, criticized him, insulted him, threatened him, laughed at him, lied about him, lied to him, and now are desperately relying on philistine swamp-denizen Robert Mueller to provide a damning report – just before the midterm elections – that will finally succeed in destroying him.

Mueller’s “investigation” has lasted 18 months, cost taxpayers $20 million dollars, and has not yielded a solitary shred of evidence that President Trump colluded with Russians or obstructed justice. In fact, Mueller’s investigation has boomeranged and is now exposing the staggering illegal soft coup waged against POTUS by deep state ex-president Obama and his politicized administration to first delegitimize candidate Trump and then to overthrow him as a president.

Why would the Deep State risk prolonging the Mueller investigation? Why does the “investigation” still exist?

Its entire reason for being is to empower the court of public opinion and swing the midterm elections in favor of Democrats. If the Republicans lose the House in November they will also lose the chairmanships of key committees – impeachment proceedings against POTUS will commence and Mueller’s investigation will cease. Mueller arrogantly believes he can run out the clock by slow-walking Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that expose Obama and the deep state involvement in the coup against President Trump.

Mueller is not overseeing a proper nonpartisan investigation – he is trying a case in the court of public opinion with the enthusiastic cooperation of the colluding mainstream media and Internet media giants with a stake in the outcome. Just before the midterms Mueller will predictably present a scathing report about the President to the public. Mueller will indict without an indictment and suggest that voters express their outrage at the polls.

A midterm victory for Democrats will freeze efforts at transparency in Congress lead by Devin Nunes (R-CA) chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Jim Jordan (R-OH) Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. Together Nunes and Jordan have been exposing the stunning improprieties of Mueller and his investigators including irregularities, improprieties, illegalities, and outright crimes committed by members of the Obama regime.

Mueller’s staff of liars, leakers, and liberals are acting in collusion with current swampster-in-chief Rod Rosenstein to topple the President of the United States! They are described by Judge Jeanine Pirro in her newly released book Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy which details the unprecedented levels of their malfeasance and how they are all trying desperately to stay out of prison themselves!

The principals in this drama knew from the very beginning that there was no “there there” – no collusion and no obstruction but that was never Mueller’s mission. Mueller is the finisher charged with poisoning public opinion with innuendo, rumor, speculation, and deliberate misrepresentation to swing the midterm elections against President Trump. The leakers are colluding with the mainstream media to paint a portrait of corruption where they know that none exists. It is character assassination – political murder without bullets.

So, why is President Donald J. Trump such a threat to the status quo? Why is Goliath even challenging David?

Because President Trump is committed to the Constitution and the rule of law which makes him the archenemy of the deep state. President Trump is an America-first patriot who believes in American strength, sovereignty, and defensible borders. He has said many times that we have no country without borders. Christopher Harris, executive director of Unhyphenated America, lists three things that define a nation:

● borders
● language
● culture and laws

Threats to the three foundational elements of any nation are not racist or xenophobic because threats to a nation’s borders, language, culture, and laws are existential threats to the nation itself. Blogger Debbie Saysy comments on Harris’ unapologetic insistence that we must protect what defines us as a nation. She has an interesting perspective that focuses on photos of borders around the world. She remarks, “You can see that the strength and security of various international borders varies greatly, based on the threat to each country, on its language, culture, and laws.”

The leftist/Islamist alliance in contemporary American politics represented by the leftist Democrat party threatens all three foundational elements that define our nation.

The left is financed and fomented by the globalist elite deep state who publicly reject borders, language, culture, and laws. They fully intend to impose an internationalized, universal one world government with one world marketplace after a socialized America provides them with total government control. The left’s romanticized oneness includes one world without borders, one language, one culture, one set of laws, and one universal educational curriculum that prepares its students to be global citizens.

The Islamists are financed and fomented by the oil rich sharia loving Muslim countries who fully intend to re-establish the Islamic caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide. Together they represent the monolithic giant Goliath in our metaphor.

They are the twin enemies waging war against the nation and President Donald Trump is the unlikely David that is standing against this monolithic giant armed with only five stones and a slingshot. Let’s examine them.

The first stone – the economy. President Trump’s bold economic policy has produced a booming 4% GDP in only 18 months in office.

The second stone – foreign policy. President Trump’s fearless unapologetic America-first foreign policy embraces our allies and penalizes our enemies. He has:

● Withdrawn the US from the catastrophic Iranian deal.
● Reimposed sanctions on Iran.
● Challenged China on tariffs.
● Stopped funding to Pakistan.
● Reduced funding to the United Nations.
● Challenged Turkey with tariffs.
● Held unprecedented talks with Kim Jong-un of North Korea who has agreed to denuclearize his country.
● Imposed tariffs on North Korea until they meet their obligation to denuclearize.
● Imposed sanctions on Russia.
● Moved the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – making him the only US president with the courage and integrity to keep that familiar campaign promise.

The third stone – strengthening the military. President Trump is proudly investing enormous resources to strengthen the United States military that was deliberately weakened under Obama.

The fourth stone – bravely renegotiating international agreements so that they are favorable to the USA. This includes renegotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada to follow, walking away from TPP and the Paris Accord, and insisting that all NATO countries pay the obligatory 3% GDP for their national defense.

The fifth stone – transparency is the most powerful of all. The fatal strike that will bring down Goliath is the exposure of Barack Obama’s criminal participation in the coup to overthrow a sitting president of the United States. It is treason.

At the end of the biblical story David hurls the final lethal stone from his sling hitting Goliath in the center of his forehead:

“After David strikes Goliath with the stone he runs to Goliath before he dies and Goliath says “Hurry and kill me and rejoice.” and David replies “Before you die, open your eyes and see your slayer.” Goliath sees an angel and tells David that it is not he who has killed him but the angel.”

In our contemporary story the angel is our beloved Constitution – no one is above the law including puppet-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama or the deep state who pulls his strings.tr

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured image is of the first sitting U.S. president to visit the Western Wall Donald J. Trump is by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters.

INNOCENT LIVES MATTER: How America can prevent murders like Mollie’s.

August 28, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Culture War, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Cutler

Illegal alien from Mexico Cristhian Bahena Rivera

On July 13, 2018, Mollie Tibbetts was murdered when she went jogging in her hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. Her alleged killer, Cristhian Bahena Rivera, is an illegal alien from Mexico.

Many articles and commentaries have detailed this horrific crime.

But my goal today, in addressing the murder of Mollie Tibbetts, is to provide insight into the lessons that must be learned, from my perspective, as an experienced, 30-year veteran of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

For starters, immigration anarchists on the left decry any mention of the fact that Rivera is an illegal alien because, they claim, that doing so is an attack on all “immigrants.”

But these immoral leftists could not care less about the real carnage created by systematic failures of the current immigration system. To them, the bodies of those who are killed by illegal aliens are simply “Speed Bumps” on their road to a borderless and defenseless United States.

Let’s be crystal clear: Rivera is many things. I could use all sorts of terms to describe him and his horrific, infuriating murder of a 20-year-old young woman he, allegedly, committed for no damned reason. However, one name that most certainly does not apply to him is “immigrant.”

Rivera is an illegal alien. Period!

It is the radical leftists who, themselves, refuse to make the supremely fundamental distinction between legal and illegal immigrants who come into the U.S.

But we must understand the importance of U.S. immigration laws to our nation’s borders. National sovereignty requires nations to control the admission of foreign nationals, the same way that sensible homeowners exercise caution in deciding on whether to admit strangers into their homes.

Simply stated, Border Security Is National Security.

Consider this – guests and legitimate visitors are expected to present themselves at our front doors and ring the bell, or knock on the door, to let us know that they want to visit.

Legitimate visitors and guests certainly don’t sneak around to the back of our houses and try to climb in through a back window.

Legitimate alien visitors are required to similarly present themselves for inspection at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors.

A section of law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 defines categories of aliens who may be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who cannot enter our country are those suffering from deadly diseases, those with severe mental illness, and, of course, aliens who are smugglers, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, or spies.

Aliens evading inspections at our border know that he/she can be barred U.S. entry for one or more the above-noted reasons. They may have criminal histories or known ties to criminal or terrorist organizations.

But, open-border leftists and immigration anarchists use the Orwellian term “Undocumented” to describe the manner of illegal entry of aliens who enter the United States – seeking to minimize the significance of this lawbreaking. Leftists blithely claim that these criminals “enter the United States undocumented.” That is a grammatically incorrect, and legally false statement. When I was an INS agent, my colleagues and I used the factually and legally accurate three-letter acronym, “EWI” (Entry Without Inspection) to describe this method of entry.

In other words, at a minimum, we could refer to these individuals by a term that served as the title of an article I wrote a while back,

Aliens Trespassing.

The term trespassing is particularly noteworthy because as I noted in that commentary,

On October 13, 2014, Schumer posted a press release on his official website that disclosed that because of the threat of terrorism, he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Schumer’s press release stated:

Currently NYC Law Has Max. Penalty for Trespassing of Under 1 Year – In Light of Terrorism, Fed Law Should Make Loud & Clear, Particularly to Trespassers from Overseas, That Wrongdoers Should Stay Off Bridges, WTC, Statue of Liberty or Other Critical Infrastructure

Schumer said NYPD has done great work pursuing cases, but available punishments are too weak.

Here is another excerpt:

“With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.”

However, the very same Schumer and his immigration anarchist cohorts insist that aliens who trespass on the United States should be granted U.S. citizenship.

Rivera not only entered the United States without inspection but, reportedly, after illegally entering the United States, procured false identity documents to game the vetting process required to be used by employers. While there is some controversy over whether or not Rivera’s employer used E-Verify, they apparently made use of a screening system that failed to identify Rivera as an imposter.

In other words, Rivera committed immigration fraud. The issue of immigration fraud was the focus of both an extensive article and a booklet I wrote on the topic, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.

This shows why the claim made by politicians that simply making E-Verify mandatory would end the hiring of illegal aliens is bogus and naive. In fact, it is dangerous.

Unscrupulous employers who are determined to hire illegal aliens to pay them substandard wages and work them under substandard conditions would simply hire them “off the books” so that these employees don’t appear on company records. Additionally, aliens can, as we have seen in this case, game this process by committing identity theft.

The solution is, not only require all employers to use E-Verify, but to also hire thousands of additional ICE agents to conduct field investigations and audits of employers to identify instances where employers and/or alien employees have defrauded the system to punish the employers and arrest and seek the deportation (removal) of illegal aliens, but to also deter crooked hiring practices by employers and to deter aliens from seeking to enter the United States illegally and to seek illegal employment.

There are several other “take-aways” from this case.

Let’s consider The DACA Sword of Damocles that hangs over our heads.

Rivera’s attorney initially claimed that he was legally present in the United States, and made some remarks about how he had entered the country as a child – presumably because the lawyer wants to claim that Rivera could be eligible for DACA.

Curiously, DHS officials have unequivocally stated that there are no immigration records for Rivera.

Having raised the issue of DACA, here is what we can learn from this case where DACA is concerned. Even days after Rivera was arrested, neither the police in Iowa nor DHS appears to know when he entered the United States.

Reportedly he entered the United States without inspection between four and seven years ago. There are no specifics as to his date of entry and, perhaps, of his true identity.

The adjudication of DACA applications would be extremely problematic. While it has been falsely sold as being about “young immigrants,” it would actually provide illegal aliens as old as 37 years of age who claim to have entered prior to their 16th birthdays to apply.

There would likely be millions of applications and only a relative handful of adjudications officers to deal with the onslaught of applications that would flood into USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) the division of the DHS that is responsible for the adjudication of all applications filed for various immigration benefits that range from providing non-immigrant aliens with authority to extend their temporary visits to change their immigration status. They adjudicate applications for political asylum and lawful immigrant status and finally, they adjudicate applications for United States citizenship.

At present, that overwhelmed agency handles more than six million applications annually.

Adding unknown millions of DACA applications would require that the beleaguered adjudications officers to stop conducting interviews. There would be no resources for field investigations. To keep up with the tsunami of applications the adjudications, officers would have to make decisions in minutes, not days or hours.

This would cause the adjudications system to implode and fraud would undoubtedly permeate the process. Immigration fraud was identified by the 9/11 Commission, as being the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists.

A wall on the U.S./Mexican border would certainly go a long way to stemming the flood of illegal aliens into the United States, but it would not stop it. Some aliens will find an alternative route to enter the United States. When we get into our cars to drive to work, we are likely to listen to the traffic reports on the radio to find the quickest way of getting to our destination by driving around traffic, construction or accidents.

Effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States must be a part of any coordinated effort to finally gain control over our borders and protect America – and innocent Americans like Mollie Tibbetts – not from immigrants but from illegal aliens. Enforcing existing laws will, at long last, imbue our immigration system with actual integrity.

Integrity is, of course, a term that scares the hell out of all too many of our politicians.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The Pope Must Resign: ‘A Conspiracy of Silence’

August 27, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Healthcare, News, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Church Militant

Given the horror that has increasingly seized hold of the Church these past 50 years — and which has climbed to unimaginable heights under the pontificate of Pope Francis — now is the appropriate moment for the laity to offer comment, which we are rightly allowed to do according to canon law.

As many people know, Church Militant has taken great pains in the past to avoid public criticism of Pope Francis with regard to various confusing theological writings, interviews and off-the-cuff remarks.

Out of respect for the office of Pope, and so as not to induce scandal, we have dutifully left the work of publicly analyzing his theological content to those above us, more qualified to address those things specifically and those responses we have covered in great detail.

Likewise, we have made a point of steering far clear of any disrespectful or uncharitable comments denigrating the Holy Father owing to his theological pronouncements — but that was in the arena of theology.

The homosexual clerical sex abuse scandal and resulting cover-up is not theological at its foundation, but moral.

And in this arena, the laity are absolutely duty-bound to speak up, for while we may not all be theologians, each one of us is a moral being and will be judged by Our Blessed Lord on how faithfully we have lived in accord with that objective morality.

With that said, Pope Francis, Holy Father, for the salvation of your own soul, you must step down from the Chair of Peter and do so immediately.

You have treated too many of the faithful with coldness and callousness, abusing the power of your office in regard to their sufferings over this horrendous unconscionable evil which you have facilitated.

On multiple occasions, you have violated your own standard of zero tolerance when it comes to cover-up bishops. You are doing it with Donald Wuerl who covered up for predator priests.

You should have, more than a week ago, stripped him of his red hat, yet he still holds the office of cardinal with your blessing — a man who covered up a homosexual priest gay pornography ring while he was bishop of Pittsburgh, and who Viganò says is lying.

You have protected abusers of power, of office, and worst of all, young adults and even children. You have covered up for them. In some cases, you have drawn them close to yourself and taken them on as trusted advisors.

And now, given the revelations over the weekend from Abp. Viganò’s testimony — a testimony you do not even deny — it is now clear that you yourself are one of the cover-up bishops because you directly covered up for an actual predator, Theodore McCarrick, until the media heat got too great to withstand.

You have violated your own zero tolerance policy as it pertains specifically to your own actions and omissions.

You have drawn into the temple of God, the most holy of sanctuaries, wicked men who have both raped and covered up the rape of innocents.

Your hypocritical and shameless parade of empty words of sorrow and pleading for forgiveness are an egregious affront to those who believe in God, because you lack all sincerity.

How many trips are you going to take, paid for by the faithful, where you continue to meet with victims, supposedly mourn with them and then return to Rome and conspire with those who abused them or created the environment for the abuse — or both?

The men you have surrounded yourself with have no supernatural faith, for one with supernatural faith would tremble and drop dead of fright at the thought of being judged for what they — and now you — have done. A man who aids, abets, protects and promotes such wicked, sexually perverted and predatory men is not fit for the Chair of St. Peter — he is fit for far worse.

These wolves in shepherds’ clothing brutalize and sodomize the sheep, and you promote them. They have no fear of God, and with each passing day, it appears that neither do you.

Any other bishop acting as you have would have been removed immediately for abuse of power and the gravest negligence of office under canon law.

Catholics hold, as you know well, that the Pope is judged on Earth by no man except God, but in conscience, have you so quickly forgotten that in the case of yourself, you are judged?

With all sincerity and concern for your immortal soul, Holy Father, recalling how you are an old man who may not wake to see the next day, your eternal life hangs in the balance. Confess the truth before you stand before Jesus Christ.

You can duck and weave questions from the press on Viganò’s testimony, and offer clever retorts to the media that sidestep the testimony of your own ambassador, but oh how you cannot do that with Almighty God.

Church Militant has independently confirmed with at least two different cardinals that the charges in the Viganò statement are absolutely true — and this is in addition to Cdl. Burke’s support of Viganò.

You, Holy Father, as every Catholic must do when in a state of sin, should accuse and judge yourselfguilty, now, while you still have air in your lungs, and dispose of the wicked heretics and sodomites you have shamelessly collected around yourself so that they may never have a role in electing your successor.

Then as your last act in office, you should resign the papacy and spare Holy Mother Church and the People of God any further harm and evil that you could inflict upon them!

You are tearing the Body of Christ apart by elevating the very men whose crimes cry out to Heaven for vengeance, who never will stop because they have no supernatural faith.

Your actions and omissions have left you unable to reign over the Church in any meaningful way. You have no credibility, no moral authority, not a shred of decency left after having covered up one scandal after another, until the day you go to your own grave.

You had better hope that this is not the state you die in, or you will be delivered over to the demons for an everlasting death of agony and torment in the unquenchable fire, for popes are not immune from risk of damnation, whether you believe in Hell or not.

And when you would next encounter the henchmen you have promoted in this life, each of you will rip and tear one another apart for all eternity, having contributed to the damnation of each other as well as innocents while on Earth.

Whatever pact of evil you may have created with one another, or rationalized, it will be your everlasting shame and agony when you are plunged into the pit where the fire is never quenched and the worm dieth not.

You still have time, Holiness. Admit your tremendous failings, sweep the wicked hirelings from the College of Cardinals, resign your office and give us back the Holy Church that we love and your sycophantic minions loathe.

Holy Father, your friends, your advisors, have raped men and boys. They destroy truth and innocence and lives and souls. You are covering for them.

After you have resigned and they have been forced from office by you, the first thing your successor should do is prosecute the entire lot to demonstrate to the world that change has indeed come to the Church. It will go much better for you that you face justice now, rather than after you die.

For the good of your soul, Holy Father, so as not to be subject to the tortures of demons for eternity, step down.

Pray, my fellow Catholics, pray your Rosary that the Queen of Heaven convert the heart of the Holy Father and bring an end to this scourge of sexual predation and cover-up.

May God have mercy on us all.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope Francis Knew About McCarrick, Covered for His Sexual Crimes

Cardinal Burke Back ABP. Vigano Statement Exposing Pope Francis

Scranton Doocese Cancels Fundraiser after PA Grand Jury Report

#MeToo: Oops, Gay Duo Married by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg Accused of Drugging and Violently Raping a Boy

August 27, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

World Net Daily in an article titled “Gay duo married by Ginsburg accused of raping student” reports:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg was criticized for publicly advocating for same-sex marriage and officiating a ceremony while the issue was before the court.

There was a formal motion for her to recuse herself from the case, which she ignored.

But now one of the duos she married is dragging her name back into the news.

Read more.

Calvin Freiburger from LifeSite News reports:

HOUSTON, August 23, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Rising baritone singer Samuel Schultz has accused a prominent homosexual couple whose “marriage” was officiated by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of drugging and violently raping him in 2010, the New York Daily News reports.

That year, as a 23-year-old graduate student at Rice University, Schultz says he met opera countertenor David Daniels and conductor Scott Walters at a closing night party for Houston Grand Opera’s run of “Xerxes.” According to his complaint, they invited him back to the apartment they were staying in for drinks, where he blacked out after just a couple sips.

Schultz says he awakened the next day “in a bed alone, completely naked,” inexplicably sore, and “bleeding from my rectum.” Daniels and Walters were not there when he woke up, but when they returned, they asked if he “had a good time” and Daniels allegedly said “‘Don’t worry about the BB thing, I’m totally negative.’ BB in this case meant bareback, otherwise known as raping me without a condom.”

Read more.

In our September 2017 column “Perverts, pedophiles and pederasts in high offices” we reported:

Daily Americans are bombarded with negative news about political and religious leaders who have fallen from grace. This has led to a loss of confidence in not only these individuals but the institutions, political parties and churches through which they used their positions of trust to abuse underage children.

Our title includes three distinct classes of abusers. A pervert is, “a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.” This category includes both heterosexual and homosexual men and women. A pedophile is, “a person who is sexually attracted to children.” A pederast is, “a man who indulges in pederasty (sexual activity involving a man and a boy).” All pederasts are by definition homosexuals.

We have reported on efforts by groups such as B4U-ACT and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to indoctrinate our children into believing that sex with men by children is not only normal but encouraged (watch the two videos below for a history of these groups).

Dr. Judith Reisman in her 2016 column “They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!” wrote:

Alfred Kinsey’s ongoing sexual anarchy campaign has no end in sight.

Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17 [2015]. To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”

Adhering to the Kinsey principle of lulling “straights” into a false sense of security, pedophile dress was largely conservative – short hair, jackets, some ties and few noticeable male ear piercings.

Matt Barber and I sat in the back of the meeting room among roughly 50 activists and their “mental health” attending female enablers. “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies,” keynoted “Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., as founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.”

However, the sex clinic was initially founded by John Money, Ph.D., to give judges “leeway” to keep child molesters out of jail. Money (deceased), a pedophile advocate, also called for an end to all age-of-consent laws. Dr. Berlin was his disciple.

There are many who fear being labeled bigots, homophobic or intolerant for telling the truth about these perverts, pedophiles and pederasts.

The Catholic Church, the Democratic Party and now Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg are all guilty of promoting sodomy under their twisted social justice mantra. This sexual behavior has dire consequences for both the victims and their perpetrators.

You cannot say we didn’t warn you!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Walters, Ginsburg and Daniels in Washington, D.C. in 2014 is by Simon Pauly.