Culture War Archives - Page 759 of 1075

Socialism vs. Trump after Massive Turnout in Florida’s Tuesday Primary

August 30, 2018/in Culture War, Economy, Elections, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Rod Thomson

Florida is the largest swing state in the union and possibly the most demographically representative with transplants from the Northeast and Midwest, along with natives of the South. Plus it’s the third largest state after California and Texas, which are not as representative.

That makes the results of Tuesday’s primaries so intriguing to the tea-leaf reading set. In this case we can see some real actual trends, because it is not just one special election that both sides were trying to make into a national referendum — it’s a mini three-quarters of America.

One big takeaway: The establishment, “centrist” portions of both parties lost big time. The Democrats went all in on the surging socialism elements of the Party while Trump remains a monstrous force in the Republican Party. That looks like the war shaping up in November, as the Democratic base moves toward the surging Bernie Sanders-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Party and Republicans continue to move toward the strong America First Trump wing.

Second big takeaway: Everyone is jazzed up. The off-year Florida primary broke records across the state for any primary this century — with higher turnout even than in presidential election years. Importantly, the increase is in both parties. The Democratic turnout is up more than the Republican turnout, but in the red areas of Florida, there was a record number of people voting Tuesday.

This is relatively unheard of in off election years and what it portends for November is not so easy to determine. One would have to give an edge to Democrats for historic reasons and greater increase in turnout reasons. However, what we know for sure is that everything could change tomorrow. Mueller could issue his report and who knows what all else. What’s clear is that Trump is turning out Democrats, but anti-Trump hysteria and socialism is turning out Republicans.

Here are the themes from the demographically representative Florida primaries Tuesday:

Trump remains a very powerful force in the GOP

In the race between long-time presumed Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam, a favorite of the GOP establishment, and one-time longshot Congressman Ron DeSantis, a favorite of President Trump and the Trump wing of the GOP, DeSantis pulled off not just an upset but a landslide upset.

DeSantis was an early Trump supporter and spent a lot of time on Fox News defending the President and attacking his critics. This is something Trump likes and rewards. Going into the election process, DeSantis was not well-known outside of his Congressional district while Putnam had strong name recognition and a ground game that had been built over many years through the GOP. He’s conservative, but definitely seen as establishment.

Eight weeks ago, Putnam was polling with solid and consistent leads of 15 to 18 percent over DeSantis. After Trump endorsed DeSantis on Twitter and then went to Tampa for a DeSantis rally, the polling flipped by an astonishing 30 percentage points and DeSantis won the primary 56 percent to 36 percent. Not even close.

That’s the power of Trump in the GOP. We’ll find out in a few months the power of Trump in a general election.

Socialism ascends in Democratic Party with nomination of Andrew Gillum

Former Congresswoman Gwen Graham, daughter of popular former Governor and Senator Bob Graham, was ahead in the polls going into the primary Tuesday. Wealthy candidates out of Miami spent about $70 million combined trying to pass her. But Gillum worked the grass roots, the black turnout, and the socialist/progressive wing and pulled off an upset that left the pollsters, pundits and media embarrassed. No one saw it — other than a little known but growing outfit of anti-Trumpsters called Change Research. They nailed it.

Graham was seen more as an establishment Democrat in the same way that Putnam was as a Republican. In fact, until Trump’s entry, it was widely believed this would be a race between those two. But the establishment in both parties is being rapidly neutered and that was obvious by Tuesday night.

Gillum spent the least of the five major candidates in his primary race and was barely seen on TV — important elements in a state with 21 million people with at least four major metro areas. He relied on a grassroots campaign, the support of the furthest left in the party and the socialism appeal of Sanders and Ocassio-Cortez to beat four other candidates, including Graham.

Gillum is young at 39, and was endorsed by socialist former Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He was the heavy favorite among Democrats who called themselves progressives. He was supported by California billionaire environmental extremist Tom Steyer. And President Trump wasted no time in going after him this morning as a “failed socialist,” tweeting out:

“Not only did Congressman Ron DeSantis easily win the Republican Primary, but his opponent in November is his biggest dream….a failed Socialist Mayor named Andrew Gillum who has allowed crime & many other problems to flourish in his city. This is not what Florida wants or needs!”

In addition to the socialism label, there are some threats moving forward with Gillum. The FBI is conducting an ongoing investigation of corruption among Tallahassee city officials (it is a long-time Democrat-run city) and no one — including Gillum — has been cleared of anything yet. Will the FBI pull a James Comey and act politically? Who can say in this environment. But that looms out there. Expect the DeSantis camp and allies to use it.

Final point. Gillum was not seen as a threat to win among any of the major candidates, and as such, he received virtually no attack ads and minimal scrutiny by the media and other candidates. That will not be the case in the next few months. (Except for the media part, of course.) A lot will come to light that has hitherto been hidden.

Flipping the Florida U.S. Senate seat just got harder

Everyone nationally is watching the races for Congress, and in this too, Tuesday’s results give the lay of the land.

The race between Gov. Rick Scott and long-time incumbent seat-warmer Sen. Bill Nelson was seen as a strong opportunity for Republicans to pick up a Senate seat and give them a cushion by flipping it to red. However, that goal just got tougher. Having Andrew Gillum, the first black gubernatorial candidate to win his party’s primary, at the top of the Florida ballot will likely ensure high black turnout from the Democratic Party as they can feel something historic to be excited about. It could be a similar dynamic for Florida as was in play in 2008 with Barack Obama.

Bill Nelson excited no black voter ever — well, no voter ever. He is a reliable Democratic vote whose 40 years in Washington have netted virtually no legacy beyond a warm D seat. Scott currently has a small lead in the contest. But Gillum’s presence will almost assuredly deliver votes to Nelson, next on the ballot, that he would not have otherwise received. Flipping the seat is now more difficult to pull off.

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

Antifa Group in Texas Plans ‘Red Army’

August 30, 2018/in Culture War, National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Peoples Cube

The Red Guards, a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist violent Antifa group, has called for the formation of a “Red Army.”

The group itself is based out of Austin, Texas, but works in tandem with Red Guards Kansas City, Red Guards Pittsburgh, Red Guards Los-Angeles, and Red Guards Charlotte to “annihilate” those they believe are “collaborators” or “fascist.”

“…we encourage the formation of paramilitary organizations on two levels. The first being those who are mainly unarmed but are prepared and trained to carry out fist fighting or using blunt weapons like axe handles or flagpoles as well as shields and basic armoring. The second level is the more advanced embryo of a Red Army, which is trained militarily and operates as soldiers all the time, engaging in production and mass work among the proletariat and the oppressed nation’s people.”

“It is time for Austin to stand up, to shake off bad leadership trying to impose itself on anti-fascism and come together under a better model of actual resistance and not token performance. When we organize and lead actions the fascists do not march every step they take is met with physical confrontation and they are bombarded from all sides.”

“On the basis of our principled united front work, fascists and their collaborators can be drowned out, run out, routed, beaten bloody, and even annihilated. These are our principles and we aim to hold them to the very finish.”

They also openly advocate for violent revolution against capitalism.

“we must seriously take up the task not only of self-defense on the personal and community level, but we must also struggle to unite all genuine antifascists behind the necessity of revolution. Revolution means the long fight for communism and nothing less.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Antonio Salazarinski originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

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.

THC Found in Breast Milk Six Days After Marijuana Use

August 29, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by National Families in Action

Marijuana study raises concerns about THC in breast milk up to six days after use

A new study from researchers at the University of California, San Diego, finds THC is present in breast milk for up to six days after nursing mothers use marijuana. This is worrisome because THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, may harm the developing brain of newborns, potentially resulting in lifelong problems that otherwise would not occur.

The study involved 50 nursing mothers who were using pot and submitted breast milk samples to researchers. The researchers found that THC remained in breast milk for up to six days after marijuana use in 34 of 54 samples. Both THC and CBD were found in five samples.

The study also presents an overview of what is known about how marijuana affects unborn and newborn babies and why its findings are important.

“Given ethical concerns, there are no randomized controlled trials on the effect of marijuana use by pregnant and lactating women,” the researchers say. And the results of other kinds of studies must be viewed with caution given the presence of confounding factors. But enough about THC’s effect on the fetus and newborns is known from animal and epidemiological studies, they say, to counsel women against marijuana use during pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

A new American Academy of Pediatrics report encourages women not to use marijuana while pregnant or breastfeeding. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists gives similar advice.

Read USA Today story here. Read Pediatrics article here.

Inside the weird and wild crusade for clean pot

The marijuana industry is a vast, toxic, and largely unregulated market – can a corporate exec and a drug dealer make it any safer?

Reporters will do anything for a story. This one found herself barreling down a California freeway at 80 mph in a driving rain with a drug dealer named Ziggy at the wheel snorting cocaine.

Ziggy, pictured above, and his partner, described as a corporate executive, started a marijuana distribution business after California legalized the drug in 2016. Their goal? To ensure the pot they distributed to dispensaries was free of contaminants.

It didn’t end well. Today, the two business partners speak to each other through their lawyers. But their story of how contaminated California pot is turns out to be as hair-raising as the drive the reporter risked her life to get.

Figuring out what the rules should be to prevent impurities from contaminating pot is nearly impossible. There are no national standards like there are for food crops. “And unfortunately, pretty much all of the marijuana in the United States is drenched in harmful chemicals,” she writes. “But let’s just say that if you like pot, you have absolutely exposed yourself to chemicals that can damage your central nervous system, mess with your hormones and give you cancer. There are toxicants in our vape pens, in our fancy prepackaged edibles and in the soil and water near many marijuana farms.”

This story will interest anyone concerned about contaminated pot.

Read Rolling Stone article here.

Marijuana growers stare down costly, burgeoning regulations

Meanwhile, marijuana growers complain about tougher regulations states are enacting to protect individuals and the environment.

“Massachusetts put in place strict energy regulations earlier this year pertaining to cultivation lighting that growers ‘are figuring out how to comply with.’
“In Colorado, cultivators now face mandatory pesticide testing.
“In Oregon, growers must prove they have a legal source of water. Stricter water requirements are increasing in markets across the country.
“In Boulder, Colorado, marijuana facilities must report energy use and offset their consumption by installing a renewable-energy facility, participating in a verified solar garden or paying into a city fund.”

It’s difficult to take such complaints seriously when pot czars are investing millions of dollars in a marijuana industry predicted to make billions.

Read MJBizDaily story here.

VIDEO: Persecuted Christians Keep the Faith – and Are Ignored by Those Who Don’t

August 29, 2018/in Culture War, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Catholic Thing

James Kilpatrick on a new film, Faithkeepers, that documents the plight of Christian families under Muslim rule. Why wasn’t it shown at WMOF2018?

Faithkeepers trailer:

Imagine that you find an envelope outside your door. In it are six bullets and a note: “With these six bullets we will kill you and your family.” Imagine that a few days later a box is left at your door with a note saying, “In this box we will bring your children’s heads.”

For those who live in the West, it’s difficult to imagine such things, yet this is an everyday reality for Christians living in the Middle East and North Africa. Faithkeepers is a new documentary by the Clarion Project about Christians in Muslim lands who refuse to denounce Christ despite daily persecution, including rape, torture, and murder.

The question is, who is keeping faith with the faith keepers? According to Aid to the Church in Need, some 215 million Christians worldwide face severe persecution, mostly at the hands of Muslims. Yet a recent poll of U.S. Catholics reveals that they are more concerned about climate change than the global persecution of Christians.

Given a list of five global concerns, Catholics put persecution of Christians at the bottom of the list. The plight of LGBT families wasn’t on the list, but – seeing how thoroughly Catholics have been indoctrinated on the subject – one can imagine that if it were, it would be ranked as a more serious concern than Christian persecution.

In fact, acceptance and inclusion of LGBT families was a main concern of the just concluded World Meeting of Families (WMOF) in Dublin. A featured speaker was Fr. James Martin, S.J.—one of the Church’s loudest voices on behalf of the LGBT community. Several other talks also focused on sensitivity to the special needs of LGBT individuals and their families. By contrast, as far as I can determine, only one talk out of approximately 100 presentations concerned the plight of persecuted families in the Middle East. Moreover, the two-page summary of the talk that I read contains neither the words “Christians” nor “Muslims.” Rather, the suffering families were portrayed merely as victims of generic “conflict.”

The WMOF’s strange emphasis on the needs of LGBT families, and its relative silence on the plight of persecuted Christian families, signifies a grotesque loss of perspective on the part of the Catholic leadership. What ought to be secondary or even tertiary concerns have been elevated over primary concerns.

On the one hand, Church leaders pay close attention to the concerns of a tiny minority (gays and lesbians make up approximately 2-3 percent of the general population, while transgenders are probably less than one-half of one percent) who pursue lifestyles that contradict Church teaching. On the other hand, the same leaders pay scant attention to the millions of Christians who are keeping the faith in the face of unrelenting persecution.

As the Faithkeepers film points out, Christians in the Middle East face extermination. In 1915, Christians comprised 20 percent of the Middle Eastern population. Today the number is 4 percent and still declining.

But the film doesn’t dwell on statistics. It wisely lets the victims tell the story: A young married women is abducted, bound, thrown into a room with two other female prisoners, and together with them is tortured and raped. All of them refuse to convert to Islam. A boy witnesses his father’s beheading, and becomes mute as a result, but experiences a miraculous recovery when his mother takes the family to a monastery in the hills. A family makes a dangerous escape in a car, with corpses on the road, bullets flying around them, children crying, and gas tank nearing empty.

Meanwhile, back at WMOF, all the other concerns were overshadowed by the specter of a new global wave of clerical abuse and cover-ups. Unlike some of the other conference concerns, the scandals are not a secondary matter. They go to the heart of the sickness in the Church – not a lack of sensitivity, but a lack of fidelity to Christ and his commandments. By covering up the abuse, bishops and heads of seminaries have substituted worldly standards of non-judgmental tolerance for Christ’s “hard” teachings about sexual morality.

The abuse scandals are doubly scandalous because they come at a time when the Church is entering a new era of persecution. Although the scandals certainly demand our attention, they also serve to draw attention away from the plight of persecuted Christians – a group that was not receiving sufficient attention to begin with. Unfortunately, the story of immoral clerics and cowardly bishop is – from a media perspective – a far more interesting story than the persecution of faithful Christians in far-ways places.

There is another factor to consider. The abuse scandals have not only taken attention away from the persecution, they have also taken away much of the monetary support that could have been provided by the Church to the persecuted. Some of the hundreds of millions of dollars that dioceses have paid in hush-money settlements over the years might well have gone to help those Christians in the Middle East and Africa who live in situations of constant danger.

Future Church historians will wonder at this gross inversion of priorities. They will wonder how the Church became so absorbed with sensitivity to sexual sub-cultures that it lost sight of a grave external threat to its very existence. They will also wonder why Church leaders in the early 21^stcentury seemed more concerned with showing solidarity with Islam (witness the USCCB’s anti-Islamophobia campaign) than in showing solidarity with persecuted Christians.

This lost perspective won’t be easily restored, but a film such as Faithkeepers is a step in the right direction. In an age when some Christians want the Church to sacrifice the faith for the sake of their own sexual preferences, Faithkeepersacquaints us with courageous Christians who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their faith. Attendees at the WMOF would have benefited if Fr. Martin’s tendentious speech had been replaced with a showing of this illuminating film.

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick is the author of Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, and a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, The Turning Point Project

Open Borders Bring a Higher Risk of Disease

August 29, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that all immigrants and refugees undergo a medical screening examination to determine whether they have an inadmissible health condition.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has technical instructions for medical examination of prospective immigrants in their home countries before they are permitted to enter the U.S. They are screened for communicable and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, mumps, and HIV. They are also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The CDC also has medical screening guidelines for refugees. These screenings are usually performed 30 to 90 days after refugees arrive in the United States.

But what about people who enter our country illegally? The CDC specifically cites the possibility of the cross-border movement of HIV, measles, pertussis, rubella, rabies, hepatitis A, influenza, tuberculosis, shigellosis, and syphilis.

Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent in South Texas, warned: “What’s coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone. We are starting to see scabies, chickenpox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, and different viruses.”

Some of the youngsters illegally entering our country are known to be carrying lice and suffering from various illnesses. Because there have been no medical examinations of undocumented immigrants, we have no idea how many are carrying infectious diseases that might endanger American children when these immigrants enter schools across our nation.

According to the CDC, in most industrialized countries, the number of cases of tuberculosis and the number of deaths caused by TB steadily declined during the 100 years prior to the mid-1980s. Since the 80s, immigrants have reversed this downward trend in countries that have had substantial levels of immigration from areas where the disease is prevalent.

In 2002, the CDC said:

“Today, the proportion of immigrants among persons reported as having TB exceeds 50 percent in several European countries, including Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. A similar proportion has been predicted for the United States.”

The number of active TB cases among American-born citizens declined from an estimated 17,725 in 1986 to 3,201 in 2015. That was an 80 percent drop. Data reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System show that the TB incidence among foreign-born people in the United States (15.1 cases per 100,000) is approximately 13 times the incidence among U.S.-born people (1.2 cases per 100,000).

Those statistics refer to immigrants who are legally in the U.S. There is no way for us to know the incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases carried by those who are in our country illegally and hence not subject to medical examination.

This public health issue is ignored by all those Americans championing sanctuary cities. The public health issue is also ignored by Americans clamoring for open borders, and that includes many of my libertarian friends.

By the way, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when masses of European immigrants were trying to enter our country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Americans hadn’t “progressed” to the point of thinking that anyone in the world has a legal right to live in America. Neither did they think that it was cruel or racist to take measures to prevent our fellow Americans from catching diseases from foreigners.

But aside from diseases, there is the greater threat of welcoming to our shores people who have utter contempt for Western values and want to import anti-Western values to our country, such as genital mutilation, honor killings, and the oppression of women.

Many libertarian types make the argument that we would benefit from open borders when it comes to both people and goods. That vision ignores the important fact that when we import, say, tomatoes from Mexico, as opposed to people, to the U.S., they are not going to demand that we supply them with welfare benefits.

The bottom line is that we Americans have a right to decide who enters our country and under what conditions. If we forgo that right, we cease to be a sovereign nation. But that may not be important to some Americans.

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: @WE_Williams.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a Border Patrol agent apprehends a man from Guatemala after he and others illegally crossed into the U.S. border from Mexico in Penitas, Texas, Aug. 15, 2018. (Photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters/Newscom)

MAGA Candidate Ron DeSantis Wins. Will face Democrat Socialist Gillum for Governor of Florida.

August 29, 2018/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Congressman Ron DeSantis won the Republican nomination for the office of Governor of the state of Florida. Rep. DeSantis was endorsed by President Trump. Rep. DeSantis will face Andrew Gillum a Democrat Socialist who was endorsed by Socialist Bernie Sanders.

DeSantis handily won the Republican primary beating his closest competitor Adam Putnam by nearly 20 points. Gillum won the Democrat nomination over his closest opponent Gwen Graham by less than 3%.

The choice for Floridians could not be more stark. A Trump Keep America and Florida Great candidate versus a Democrat Socialist.

The voter turn out favored the Republicans. In the gubernatorial primary the Florida Division of Elections reported that 1,618,371 Republicans voted versus 1,509,793 Democrats.

In comparison Rick Scott won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate with 1,639,486 Republicans voting in the primary.

It is clear that given primary voter turn out that the Republicans have the edge over the Democrats.

The key is for DeSantis and Scott to join together to drive the Republican voter turnout in the November midterm election. If they do, then both DeSantis and Scott will win.

RELATED INFOGRAPHICS ON THE 2018 FLORIDA PRIMARY:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bernie Sanders-Endorsed Florida Man Threatens America’s Freest Economy

Democrats Just Did the Unthinkable. They Nominated a Real Socialist for Gov. in Florida.

FBI Corruption Investigation Plagued Tallahassee During Andrew Gillum’s Mayorship

Florida Dem who scored upset primary victory haunted by city’s corruption probe

Mainstream media to Ron DeSantis: OMG, you said “monkey it up”

MyPanhandle.com did the following comparison of the policy positions of the two candidates for Governor of Florida:

RON DESANTIS:

Ron DeSantis is currently a U.S. Representative for Florida’s Sixth District. He graduated from Yale University and later from Harvard Law School. During his time at Harvard, DeSantis earned a commission in the US Navy as a JAG officer.

During his active duty service, DeSantis supported operations at Guantanamo Bay and deployed to Iraq as an adviser to a US Navy SEAL commander. He earned a bronze star medal for meritorious service and the Iraq campaign medal.

DeSantis is endorsed by President Donald Trump and rallied with him in Tampa earlier this month.

DEFENDINGFLORIDIANS’ RIGHTS:

DeSantis says if elected, he will stand up for law-abiding Floridians by defending their Second Amendment rights. DeSantis has an A grade from the NRA.

According to his website, DeSantis will also sign pro-life legislation into law to defend the right to life.

He plans to defend First Amendment rights “against those in academia, media and politics who seek to silence conservatives.”

IMMIGRATION:

DeSantis says he will not allow sanctuary cities in Florida. He also plans to enact E-verify to “ensure a legal workforce and higher wages for Floridians.

ENVIRONMENT:

According to his website, DeSantis will improve water quality and safeguard the state’s natural resources.

In order to protect our coasts, DeSantis says he will stop toxic discharges from Lake Okeechobee and will store and clean polluted water south of the lake.

His plan also includes beach restoration, flood mitigation and restoring the Everglades.

EDUCATION:

DeSantis’ website says he will improve education by stopping Common Core and prioritizing American civics and the study of the Constitution.

DeSantis says he will promote skills-based education and vocational training.

In order to make sure all of the state’s children have access to high-quality education, DeSantis says he will enhance parental choice programs.

ECONOMY:

DeSantis’ plan to continue “Florida’s economic momentum” includes maintaining the status as a low-tax state by opposing tax increases.

He also says he will support a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote in the Legislature to raise taxes.

If elected, DeSantis also says he will eliminate unreasonable regulations, reduce bureaucracy and crack down on lawsuit abuse.

ANDREW GILLUM:

Andrew Gillum is currently the Mayor of Tallahassee. He was the first person in his family to graduate college and has 15 years of public service experience.

GUN SAFETY:

If elected, Gillum says he will “never back down from common sense solutions to keep our streets, parks, and schools safe from gun violence.”

After the Stoneman Douglas massacre, Gillum says he “led the charge” for policies including:

A ban on assault weapons, large capacity magazines and bump stocks

Strengthening and requiring universal background checks

Closing private sale loopholes

Restricting gun access for the mentally ill and known foreign and domestic terrorists

Prohibiting gun possession for people with felony and misdemeanor domestic violence and stalking convictions

Banning the purchase and possession of armor-piercing bullets

Gillum is a Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate. The NRA has given him a grade of F.

ENVIRONMENT:

According to his website, Gillum believes that climate change is real and is an urgent threat. He believes the best way to address the impacts of climate change is to “to embrace a plan to transition Florida to clean energy as rapidly as possible.”

Gillum says, if elected, he will work to keep our water clean from toxic algae blooms and fight to protect Florida’s access to clean water sources.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM:

Gillum says he supports the legalization of marijuana, “in order to generate new revenue to pay for teacher and instructional staff pay increases and to reduce the mass incarceration of people with low-level drug offenses.”

IMMIGRATION:

Gillum’s website says he supports a “comprehensive immigration overhaul.” That includes abolishing ICE in its current form “to be replaced with a more compassionate and focused agency.”

LGBTQ:

If elected, Gillum says he will work to address LGBTQ discrimination issues through statewide policies that will ensure equal treatment and equal rights for all Floridians.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS:

Gillum says he will push for equal pay legislation and will protect and encourage women-owned businesses.

Gillum’s website states that he “trusts women to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctor — not politicians.” He says he is the only candidate to propose a law protecting women’s access to no-cost contraceptive care under Obamacare.

VIDEO: My White Privilege

August 29, 2018/in Culture War, Elections, Politics, Video/by Bill Finlay

Here’s the truth about “real” white privilege in America.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech

VIDEO: Why the ‘White Privilege’ Label is by Definition Racist in Less than 2 Minutes

Students Rake in Extra Credit After Taking Quiz on Their White Privilege

Do White Americans Have White Privilege?

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.

Twitter Reverses Ruling After Backlash, Concedes It’s Against the Rules to Wish Death Upon Dana Loesch’s Children

August 28, 2018/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

Twitter reversed course Monday and suspended a Twitter account that said National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch “has to have her children murdered.”

“The only way these people learn is if it affects them directly,” Twitter user Milan Legius wrote in a reply to Loesch on Sunday. “So if Dana Loesch has to have her children murdered before she’ll understand, I guess that’s what needs to happen.”

Twitter initially ruled on Sunday that after “carefully” reviewing the reported tweet, that it had “no violation of the Twitter Rules against abusive behavior.”

Following news coverage from media outlets including The Daily Caller News Foundation, Twitter “re-reviewed” the report on Monday and changed its ruling.

“We have re-reviewed the account you reported and have locked it because we found it to be in violation of the Twitter Rules,” Twitter wrote in an email to Dana’s husband Chris Loesch, who shared it with The DCNF.

“You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people,” Twitter’s rules state.

“If the account owner complies with our requested actions and stated policies, the account will be unlocked,” Twitter wrote in the email to Loesch, who initially reported the threat against the couple’s children.

“I wish Twitter just treated all users consistently,” Dana told The DCNF. She is used to abuse on Twitter, where the replies to her tweets are often misogynistic.

Twitter did not immediately return a request for comment.

The NRA in general has become a popular target for the activist left, which often scapegoats the NRA for mass shootings its members didn’t commit.

Leftist activists have sought to silence the NRA by getting the nonprofit’s media arm banned from Amazon, Apple and Google’s streaming services. So far, the three have allowed NRATV to remain on their platforms.

Twitter’s reversal on Monday was similar to its reversal on suspending Turning Point USA communications director Candace Owens.

Twitter suspended Owens in April for imitating New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong’s anti-white tweets, but restored Owens’ account access following a backlash on social media.

The company attributed Owens’ suspension to an “error.”

COLUMN BY

PETER HASSON

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

RELATED ARTICLES:

If feminism is about choice for women, why can’t I choose to be a conservative?

Twitter Algorithm Buried Republicans For Something Totally Out Of Their Control

NRA Boycotts Have Backfire Effect, Energize Conservatives

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.

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

3 Examples of How Social Security Robs Americans of Greater Income Before, During Retirement

August 27, 2018/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Regulation, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Social Security takes a whopping 12.4 percent of American workers’ paychecks, but a new backgrounder by The Heritage Foundation shows that workers are getting a bad deal from the program.

Despite its popularity, Social Security typically provides very low—and in many cases, negative—rates of return.

Although the program provided high returns and windfall benefits to its earliest recipients, Social Security is no longer a good deal for workers.

The Heritage Foundation analysis shows that younger workers—even low-wage ones—would receive at least three times greater rates of return from private savings than Social Security will provide.

To assess Social Security’s so-called “rate of return,” Heritage’s analysis compares what workers would receive if their payroll taxes were invested in personal accounts compared with what Social Security will provide under two scenarios: 1) current law, with roughly 20 percent benefit cuts beginning around 2034; and 2) a scenario whereby payroll taxes rise immediately to a level necessary to pay the program’s prescribed benefits.

While virtually all workers—across income levels, both genders, and generations—would be far better off with personal savings than Social Security, younger workers get the worst deal from the government program.

The average young male worker is virtually guaranteed a negative rate of return from Social Security. Take these hypothetical examples:

Marc Perez is 23 years old and earns an average income of $60,006 per year. He will pay $547,088 in Social Security taxes (excluding disability insurance taxes) throughout his lifetime. In return, he will receive a monthly benefit of $2,209 in retirement.

If he instead invested that same amount—$547,088—in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, he would accumulate more than $1.5 million in a retirement account and could use that to purchase a lifetime annuity that would pay him $6,185 per month, or nearly three times what Social Security will provide.

Even lower-income earners, like Ashley Martin, who generally receives higher returns from Social Security, would be better off saving and investing in their own personal retirement accounts.

Martin is also 23 and makes $19,768 per year. She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.

Given the preceding examples, it will come as no surprise that high-income earners like Courtney Jones get the worst deal from Social Security.

Jones is also 23 and makes $128,400 per year (Social Security’s taxable maximum). She will pay $860,050 in Social Security taxes throughout her lifetime and can expect to receive a monthly benefit of $2,683 from the government program.

However, if she invested that $860,050 in her own retirement account, she would accumulate more than $2.8 million in retirement savings—an amount that could provide her with a monthly annuity of $10,132, or almost four times what Social Security can provide.

If workers did not use their personal savings to purchase annuities, but instead drew down on them as needed in retirement, they would be able to leave sizable bequests to their heirs.

In contrast, workers who die before reaching Social Security’s retirement age or shortly thereafter often receive little to nothing in return for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes.

The ability to leave bequests would be especially meaningful for lower-income workers. Not only do lower-income workers tend to have lower life expectancies, and therefore receive less in Social Security benefits than higher-income counterparts, but their families do not receive the same leg up from bequests that middle- and upper-income families often receive from their elders to pay for a grandchild’s education or to purchase a home.

After payroll taxes and other levies, there simply isn’t much left for lower-income workers to save for the benefit of their heirs.

A young male earning only half the average wage would have enough in a personal account to provide the exact same income that Social Security provides, and to also leave $479,000 to his heirs if he died at the average life-expectancy age of 76. Even if he were to live to age 90, he would have $270,000 left in savings to leave to his heirs.

Allowing workers to more easily save for their own needs today, and in retirement, instead of taxing them heavily to provide them with public benefits would enable workers to accrue higher retirement incomes in addition to greater take-home pay during their working years.

Supplemental Security Income benefits for elderly individuals who face poverty could provide a floor below which no worker would fall, but such income security benefits would require only a fraction of Social Security’s current payroll taxes.

Lawmakers need to act now—not only to address Social Security’s looming insolvency, but to reform the program in a way that reduces the tax burden on workers, leaving them with more money to pursue their goals today and to put toward personal savings.

Pairing Social Security reforms that limit the program’s size and taxes with universal savings accounts would help accomplish that goal by allowing workers to save, tax-free, for whatever purposes they want.

The American people, not Washington bureaucrats, should be the ones to decide how much and how best to save for their needs today and in retirement.

COMMENTARY BY

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.

Julia Howe

Julia Howe is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

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

#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.

Ways To Safely Store Your Firearms

August 27, 2018/in Culture War, Gun Rights, Healthcare, News, Regulation/by C Fine

In today’s world, you just can’t be too safe. Violent organizations like Antifa are everywhere it seems, criminals are waiting to break into your home, or rob you on the street and then you have groups actively trying to take away your guns, which is your defense against all of this craziness.

It’s enough to make you depressed. But I would rather be ready for anything than be depressed. And that means having my legally owned firearms always at the ready. However, once you are ready to defend yourself, you have to make sure that your family is safe and protected from accidents involving your guns.

So we have some tips for storing your firearms that will prevent disaster in your home. Your family is the most important thing in your life. You have a home security system for your house to keep them safe, so make sure that you take the same precautions with your weapons.

Store Ammunition Separately

Below we have some great tips on how to keep your guns safely stored, but it is a good idea to always store your ammo in a separate place. It’s just good safety practice.

Trigger Locks

Sadly, you’ve seen the news stories about kids who got a hold of a gun and accidentally killed themselves. Thankfully, these heartbreaking scenarios are avoidable by using trigger locks. They keep your gun from being fired or loaded by others. The good news is that most new guns come with a trigger lock. Some simply clasp around the trigger or trigger housing to prevent the trigger from being pulled. Other solutions will block the action of the firearm from being closed. They can also prevent a magazine from being loaded into a grip. So even if someone gets to your weapon, they can not fire it.

Gun Safes

I’ve always found it odd that so many people use safes for their valuables and yet many of these same people will not lock up their firearms in a safe. It is the most secure means of securing your gun. Gun safes even have lined interiors that will help to protect the finish of your guns. They are heavy safes made of heavy-gauge steel and have complex locking mechanisms that burglars can’t beat. You can also bolt them to the wall or the floor. This is the safest place for your guns when they are not needed.

Gun Cases

Gun Cases are another good option. These soft and hard-side cases can be locked for when you transport your guns. Much like trigger locks, this is a very affordable solution. They are portable and easy to store anywhere, whether you are shooting at the range or attending a gun show. Many people even use these in their homes to guard against kids getting their hands on their guns.

Locked Steel Gun Cabinets

Locked gun cabinets are great because they allow you to have more room for your weapons, while still providing a locked place for them. They have various shelf and configuration options too. They use a thinner gauge steel, so they are not as heavy as gun safes and can also be moved easier. Which is why this is great for a second floor and people who live in apartments love them as well.

These are the best ways to keep your guns safe while they are being stored. We love our firearms and the freedoms they afford us, but nobody wants unauthorized people gaining access to them. The results can be disastrous and it can ruin your life while ending another. Besides, keeping your guns safe is just a part of being a responsible gun owner. Keep in mind that these measures will help protect your guns from others, but it is still a good idea to have a home security system installed in your home. You can learn more about them over at Gadgetreview. With home security in place and your guns stored safe, you will be all set.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of 88 Tactical.