Two Commentaries on Benedict XVI’s Letter

/in , , , , , /by

Note: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s brief letter to German priests, which was released last week, has generated a flood of commentary, both because it was unexpected from a figure who has maintained almost total silence since his resignation, and because it presented sharp observations about developments inside and outside the Church that led to the steep rise in sexual abuse. That text warrants extensive consideration, but for now two commentaries by TCT regulars: Fr. Gerald Murray, a theologian and canon lawyer; and Michael Pakaluk, a philosopher. – Robert Royal

God’s Absence Enabled the Offenses

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in his surprise letter on the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, examines the root causes of the criminal immorality of an astounding number of Catholic clerics. He identifies as a prime factor the collapse of sound moral theology, the result of the rejection of natural law reasoning. Underlying this theological chaos is a deeper crisis, what Benedict calls “the absence of God.” He writes: “Only where faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.”

This calls to mind Robert Cardinal Sarah’s book God or Nothing. When God ceases in fact to be the motive, the center and the hope of the Church’s teaching and activity, innovators very quickly create clever substitutes that in fact turn out to be nothing more than self-worship.

Benedict writes that, after the Council, “it was chiefly the hypothesis that morality was to be exclusively determined by the purposes of human action that prevailed.” Since each man determines his purposes, each man creates his own morality, making himself the determinant of right and wrong for himself, pushing God and His law aside.

Man is to be honored in place of God as the source of his own moral truth. This is the apostasy of the autonomous man of “conscience” who recognizes God’s law only when it is in agreement with what he has decided he already wants to do.
In the strange world of a Church without God at its center, what about other doctrines of the Faith? Benedict examines the loss of faith manifested by how many in the Church treat the Most Holy Eucharist: “Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern.”

The generalized loss of a sense of awe and respect for Christ’s Real Presence is undeniable. Benedict writes: “What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery.” His use of the word “destroy” is telling.

The new thinking about the Mass and the Eucharist that largely prevailed after the Second Vatican Council resulted in various changes that have diminished the reverence expressed by the average Mass goer:

*
  • Holy Communion is no longer received kneeling but standing, no longer on the tongue alone but now also in the hand;
  • the tabernacle was moved off of the main altar, and the priest now stands, or sits in a chair, in the location where the Blessed Sacrament was formerly reserved;
  • the tabernacle containing the sacramental presence of God made man is placed off center on a side altar or in some instances in a location not visible from the church pews;
  • silence in church before Mass has been replaced by casual banter in audible tones;
  • many, many parishioners no longer genuflect when entering or leaving the church;
  • venerable liturgical forms, the Latin language and sacred chant were cast out and replaced by generally inadequate and uninspiring replacements;
  • almost everyone at Mass goes to Communion, while very few people go to Confession, indicating that people no longer have a consciousness that one must not receive Communion is a state of mortal sin, because most people no longer think that mortal sin is still mortal sin.

Benedict identifies the signs of this breakdown of faith and worship:

  •  “The declining participation in the Sunday Eucharistic celebration shows how little we Christians of today still know about appreciating the greatness of the gift that consists in His Real Presence.
  •  “The Eucharist is devalued into a mere ceremonial gesture when it is taken for granted that courtesy requires Him to be offered at family celebrations or on occasions such as weddings and funerals to all those invited for family reasons.
  • “The way people often simply receive the Holy Sacrament in communion as a matter of course shows that many see communion as a purely ceremonial gesture.”

The temptation to make religion into a kind of folkloric experience celebrating man’s attempt to build a community of benevolence and good feeling is seen when a priest invites everyone at a Funeral Mass of Nuptial Mass to receive Holy Communion.

Why would a priest invite people who do not believe in the Real Presence to come forward to receive, saying to them ”The Body of Christ” in response to which the non-believers are asked to say “Amen,” signifying belief in what they do not believe?
Why would a priest communicate to non-practicing Catholics that they should feel free to receive Holy Communion without previous confession? How did we get to this point of treating the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ as a mere token of participation in a ritual?

Benedict calls us all to renewed faith: “what is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament.”

It is obvious that a profound disorientation entered into the Church that has manifested itself in doctrinal confusion and an attitude of laxity regarding immorality and even criminal sexual abuse.
The remedy that Benedict indicates is to return to a deep appreciation of the Faith according to its true nature, which includes being ready to die for Christ as the price of fidelity to him.

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City. He is a frequent contributor on radio and television, including EWTN’s Papal Posse.

A Practical Way for Pastors – and Laity

Michael Pakaluk

Benedict was the universal pastor of the Church, but his essay on sex abuse and the crisis is written not as pope but as a priest, to priests, in Germany (specifically, to the journal Klerusblatt). Therefore, although it raises large questions in passing – and no one who publishes today can claim to be addressing only a restricted readership – it is valuable mainly as showing a practical way for pastors. In doing so, it also shows ordinary Catholics how humbly to serve the Church in these troubled times.

We see its limited purposes in its opening sentence: “The matter begins with the state-prescribed and supported introduction of children and youths into the nature of sexuality.” He is referring to how, in Germany in 1968, the Ministry of Health under Käte Strobel published a “sex atlas” (Sexualkundeatlas), and produced a movie called Helga, both ostensibly “educational,” but calculated to subvert the authority of local governments and churches over sexual mores.

One could raise deep and universal questions on this basis. Walker Percy, for instance, pleaded with us to consider how America almost overnight became a society in which people streamed to see a pornographic movie in their neighborhood theater. He meant Deep Throat (1972), which became the highest grossing movie of its time.

Or one might ask why libertinism gets introduced under the guise of objective science.

Or whether a sexually permissive society doesn’t, as a society, set itself against the welfare of children – abandoned in divorce, instrumentalized by in vitro conception, or killed by abortions.

But it’s clear that Benedict gives the example simply to appeal to the memories of his readers, mainly elderly German clerics, to shock them once again into seeing that “what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course.”

Even his reference to Veritatis splendor has a limited purpose. It’s an open secret that Veritatis splendor is not a favorite reference source of the magisterium of Francis. In particular, Amoris Laetitia ignores it, while seeming, to many interpreters at least, to re-introduce all the errors that the encyclical rejected – the “fundamental option,” conscience as subjective not objective, the denial of intrinsically evil acts.

**

So how is it possible to refer to Veritatis splendor without at least asking whether any current hesitancy, today, in dealing firmly with sexual abuse, is a consequence of a dalliance among influential bishops in those old errors?

And yet Benedict, now devoted primarily to a life of prayer and contemplation, obviously avoids asking this. He does not even write in the manner of someone who thought to raise the question, but then thought better of it. In his essay, Veritatis splendor was important in putting an end to the Church’s vulnerability in teaching, in the face of the sexual revolution.

That vulnerability led to a collapse in seminary formation. Veritatis splendor proved a necessary piece in the reform of seminaries, which has mainly been successful. This again reflects the viewpoint of a priest, who wonders “how young people in this situation could approach the priesthood and accept it, with all its ramifications.”

I said that Benedict’s essay shows a humble path. So it is, here, in its engagement with Veritatis Splendor. He refers to just one teaching of the encyclical, “there [are] actions which [are] always and under all circumstances to be classified as evil.” His essay clearly assumes that that claim, although once controversial, is now taken for granted by everyone.

Why? Because everyone has come to judge, correctly, that sexual abuse of minors is intrinsically evil. Philosophy professors know that certain stock examples have always been able to confound relativists in the classroom: What about rape? What about dashing out the brains of infants?

Well, what about sexual abuse of minors? For Benedict it’s a secondary point that that logic has not, yet, been universally extended to other intrinsically wrong sexual acts, such as sodomy.

That he is writing humbly, for priests, is shown in the Eucharist’s being the focal point of the essay. John Paul II used to write a humble letter to priests, as a fellow priest, on Holy Thursday. Benedict does something similar just before Holy Week.
Benedict gives a wonderful précis of the gospel: the universe is meaningless without God; but a loving God would reveal himself; and he showed the depth of his love by taking on our nature.

Just as the source of evil is flight from God, so the remedy for evil is found in the presence of God. “Let us consider this with regard to a central issue,” he next says, “the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern.”

Note the “our”: he means priests. It’s within the power of any parish priest to address the abuse crisis just here.

The letter closes, “I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today.” Here, too, is an example of great humility, since it is clear from Benedict’s essay that, the differences noted above notwithstanding, he has allowed himself to be influenced by Francis.

Consider that a couple of paragraphs in the essay are on the theme of the devil as the great accuser. That was not a big theme of Benedict’s pontificate but it has been for Francis, long before Viganò.

Or the theme that, although it’s good to foster communities of Christian life, the Church catches up the good and bad in its dragnet.

The most beautiful paragraphs in the essay perhaps those on martyrdom, “Today God also has His witnesses (martyres) in the world. We just have to be vigilant in order to see and hear them.”

Benedict, I think, means Francis and the martyrs Francis has noticed for us. Read Francis’ homily at a Mass for Martyrs of the 20th and 21st centuries to get the point. And of course, he encourages us to be witnesses ourselves.

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is acting dean of the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is coming out from Regnery Gateway in March 2019.

The Catholic Thing

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Like us on Facebook and Twitter. © 2019 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.

VIDEO: CNN has Hissy Fit! Trump Considered Releasing Illegal Aliens into Sanctuary Cities

/in , , , , /by

Well, if they must be released where else should he release them?  Wouldn’t Dems want them sent to ‘welcoming’ cities? 

In probably the most blatant NIMBY move ever by the Open Borders pushers, CNN was aghast this morning at the idea that Trump would consider such an “inhumane” idea—using children and families as pawns in a political game is an outrage (they sniffed!).

(NIMBY you may recall stands for Not in My Backyard and is frequently used when some project citizens object to is proposed for their neighborhood.)

Below is CNN’s news, but it doesn’t do justice to the outrage expressed by the morning anchors.  (Yes, I watch CNN every morning for a little while to see what ticks off the Libs on any given day!).

Trump pressured Nielsen to release detained immigrants into sanctuary cities at the behest of Stephen Miller they say.

The (now!) saintly Ms. Nielsen refused.

CNN this morning,

Trump pressured Nielsen to release detained immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities

The Trump administration pressured the Department of Homeland Security to release immigrants detained at the southern border into so-called sanctuary cities in part to retaliate against Democrats who oppose President Donald Trump’s plans for a border wall, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN on Thursday.

[What do they mean by “retaliate,” I thought the sanctuary city political leaders loved the “new Americans” arriving daily from Mexico!—ed]

Fox has prepared an interactive map of sanctuary cities and counties. 

Trump personally pushed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to follow through on the plan, the source said. Nielsen resisted and the DHS legal team eventually produced an analysis that killed the plan, which was first reported by The Washington Post.  [Sounds like the Nielsen acolytes are squealing.—ed]

The proposal is another example of Trump’s willingness to enact hardline immigration policies to deliver on border security, a key issue for his political base.

Thursday’s reports come as the President has amplified his rhetoric on illegal immigration in recent weeks, even threatening to close the southern border if Congress and Mexico don’t take action.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller urged senior DHS officials to make the plan a reality, the source said. The plan finally died after Miller and other White House officials pushed it in February, according to the source.

[….]

“Sanctuary city” is a broad term applied to jurisdictions that have policies in place designed to limit cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions.Cities, counties and some states have a range of informal policies as well as laws that qualify as “sanctuary” positions.

Most of the policies center on not cooperating with federal law enforcement on immigration policies. Many of the largest cities in the country have forms of such policies.

Click here to read it all.

What should you do?

Tell the President don’t release any of them, but if they must, sanctuary cities should be the administration’s first choice.

Heck, I would make a formal request to each of them and ask how many border-crossers would they commit to caring for? (And commit to making sure they appear at the asylum court hearing!).  Call them out by name! Call out every mayor! Get them all on record!

And, then to be sure that local media reports how many are coming, send out White House press releases to media outlets in each city with the number the city leaders have committed to welcome (house and feed on the local taxpayer’s dime!).

RELATED ARTICLE: Noncitizen Sentenced for Illegally Voting in Presidential Election

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

Maryland: Legal Immigrant Attacked for Wearing MAGA Hat

/in , , , , /by

I said I would write about American crooks and criminals from time to time, and so I am with this post.

In my previous post I warned readers about jogging or walking alone, and it appears one is in double trouble walking alone while wearing this hat!

First, here is the bare bones story from WTOP in Montgomery County, MD thanks to reader Cathy for sending it.

Man in ‘Make America Great Again’ hat harassed, assaulted and robbed in Germantown

Two men are charged with attacking and robbing a man in Germantown, Maryland, who was wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.

Montgomery County police said the victim was walking on Cottage Garden Drive on Saturday when he was approached by the men.

The two began harassing the victim and asking why he was wearing the MAGA hat.

The victim replied that he was entitled to his own views, and kept walking.

But police said the two men attacked the victim, told him to take off the hat, and hit him until he fell to the ground.

The victim was then robbed, and the two men fled.

[….]

The charges against 27-year-old Jovan Crawford, of Germantown, and 25-year-old Scott Roberson, of D.C., include robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery and second-degree assault.

What no hate crime? No photos of the perps? And, who was the victim who dared to wear a MAGA hat in the peoples’ republic of MoCo, Maryland?

I wanted to know more and this is what I found….

I found photos and details here at Pacific Pundit.  I had not previously heard of the site, but there is no pulling punches here!

JOVAN CRAWFORD, SCOTT ROBERSON ARRESTED AFTER ATTACKING MAN IN MAGA HAT

Meet Jovan Crawford and Scott Roberson, two left wing communist thugs. They have been arrested after attacking a legal immigrant from the nation of Togo. WHy did these two thugs attack the immigrant? Because he was wearing a MAGA hat in Maryland. Don’t expect this story to get any national media attention. In fact, the few local media outlets reporting sparsely on this story don’t even give the name of the man who was attacked by this (sic) two communist thugs. They only refer to him as an immigrant from Togo.

Pacific Pundit posted this tweet from an ABC News reporter.  ABC!  Therefore this isn’t fake news, right!

More here.

Bottomline, two African American thugs were arrested in the assault and robbery of a legal new American so it’s likely a story to be swept under the rug!

I wanted to know a little about Pacific Pundit and in the process found this site called Media Bias/Fact Check that is obviously a Leftwing attempt to silence views on the right calling those they disagree with “fake news.”  It labels Pacific Pundit an extreme Rightwing site.  Therefore you should add Pacific Pundit to your reading list if the Leftwingers are so worried about it!

Question: Laughing to myself, how soon do you think our borders would be closed to immigrants if all coming in had the same political views as the man from Togo?

Answer:  In a nanosecond, if the Dems had their way!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

NJ Rape and Murder of Jogger by Illegal Alien is Reminder to All

Arrests Made in Lewiston, ME Death of White Man at the Hands of a Gang of African Refugees

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

PODCAST: Trump’s Tax Returns, Part Deux

/in , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

You’ve got to hand it to the Democrats and their lap dogs, the main stream media, as they do not give up easily. This month it is President Trump’s tax returns. Only God knows what it will be next month. At least they know how to mount an attack. I would love to see their strategy room adorned with a portrait of George Soros, their patron saint of counter-culture.

I brought the subject of presidential tax returns up a few years ago, but it recently resurfaced. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA), made a request of the the Internal Revenue Service commissioner for six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns, which will inevitably result in a spirited brawl with the White House. Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised; after all, we’re in an election cycle and the Democrats have again embarked on another smoke and mirrors campaign to assassinate the president’s character. They couldn’t take him down with the Mueller investigation, so now they are grasping at straws to find a way to besmirch his character. So, this isn’t about obtaining his tax returns, which they know they are not entitled to, as much as it is a part of their overall strategy to bash the president.

Donald Trump’s failure to disclose his tax returns thus far has once again come under scrutiny by the press. They contend it is their “right” to review all candidate returns to assure they are not cheating or using unscrupulous tax schemes. Mr. Trump contends his tax returns are being audited by the IRS and, based on the advice of his lawyers, he should not release them prematurely. Of course, the Democrats and the press do not accept this and adamantly demands to see his tax returns. Frankly, it is none of their business

Let’s see if we can clear up a few things regarding this issue.

First, there is absolutely no legal requirement for a candidate to disclose his/her tax returns. This is something the press views as unwritten law, but there is no sand in it. Further, not releasing tax returns is certainly not without precedent. Tax Analysts, a nonprofit organization who monitors presidential tax returns, lists many exceptions:

  • “For tax year 2001, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney released partial returns. For tax year 2000, Bush released only his Form 1040; Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but released no forms.”
  • Ronald Reagan did not report his returns for the 1980 election.
  • Jimmy Carter also didn’t report his for the 1976 campaign.
  • “Gerald Ford did not release his returns, but he did release summary data about his federal taxes for the years between 1966 and 1975.”
  • “Franklin Roosevelt did not release tax returns during his presidency, but many returns were later made available by his presidential library.”

And there are no tax returns listed for Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. So, as you can see, there is no mandate to release tax returns. It’s just something the Democrats and the press insists they have a right to. They do not.

As an aside, the only tax report on record for President Trump is for 2005 which was mysteriously produced in 2017 and revealed nothing improper.

Second, rarely does anyone read the tax returns, people just want to know if they have been released. In President Trump’s case though, the attacking liberal media will go through it with a fine tooth comb, spotting any possible indiscretion and blowing it out of proportion. If and when the president releases his tax returns, they will undoubtedly be squeaky clean, leading the press to conclude, “Well, yes, I guess he knows how to make money” (but will never openly admit it to the public).

Third, Mr. Trump provided a summary of his financials in his book, “Crippled America.” Why is the press not interested in analyzing this report?

As long as President Trump holds on to his tax returns, the press and his political opponents will claim this is a liability, that he has something to hide. However, let’s assume the president is correct, that he is being audited by the IRS. Those of you who have suffered through such a review will probably side with the President by saying, “It’s none of your business,” or possibly something a little stronger.

First published: June 15, 2016. Updated 2019.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Attacking the Good Guys

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, where the small community here of faithful, committed Catholics is coming under attack from their home the diocese of Manchester.

These are the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart established by Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., in 1949, and this particular community was born in 1989.

The attack is centered around the group’s adherence to the Catholic dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” —  in Latin known as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or, in shorthand, EENS.

And yes, you heard correctly, a group of faithful Catholics is being attacked by the local diocese for believing and teaching a magisterially defined dogma of the Faith, reiterated even as recently as last year by Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Br. Andre Marie: What effect has that had on the community? The effect has been utterly devastating. Not only on the brothers and sisters but on our school children, our school teachers, all of the community members, because we have lots of people who would go to daily Mass and (which isn’t allowed to be offered anymore) — no, we have an empty tabernacle that we have left opened just to remind us that Our Lord is not there.

In recent years, the climate in the Church has made a definitive turn away from tradition, and those concerned about this have serious misgivings about what’s going on here at St. Benedict Center.

CJ Doyle: There certainly does seem to be an attempt to inflict all sorts of petty humiliations on them over the years. There seems to be an animus against their traditional beliefs and practices. And by the way, this is one of the few Catholic communities and few Catholic religious orders that have been completely untainted by any charge of sexual abuse or that kind of misconduct. So why are they going after a group of innocent, unoffending, traditional Catholics while they tolerate so much dissent, so much scandal and, frankly, so much corruption elsewhere.

CJ Doyle has no official connection to the center or the community, but he is a member of a group that supports their evangelization efforts and traditional expressions of the Faith: “Why would you go after a group of Catholics who are both faithful and who are effective in promoting the Faith when you have so much scandal and so much corruption elsewhere?”

The individual responsible for the attacks from the diocese is Fr. Georges de Laire, who shortly after being promoted to judicial vicar of the diocese about two years ago, began launching the broadsides against the center.

Diocesan insiders tell Church Militant the attacks are designed in part by de Laire to improve his image in Rome so he can climb the ladder and be promoted. So he whipped up some spurious claims of heresy against the community and began hurling weighty canonical measures against its members in an effort to gain attention.

That process became complicated by a misunderstanding of one of Br. Andre Marie’s replies, and de Laire jumped on the opportunity, issuing a letter this past January stripping the community of its ability to have a diocesan-approved priest offer daily Mass, which had been the case for close to a decade.

Church Militant contacted Fr. de Laire, as well as other diocesan officials, asking for an interview about this whole situation, but that request unsurprisingly was rejected.

It’s clear that de Laire wants the community to simply give up and move on, and he’s making life very difficult for them in the meanwhile.

To be clear, the group does not preach heresy — not in the slightest — and in fact, de Laire could find himself in hot water for insinuating such a false and defamatory claim because he, in effect, is positioning the group as heretics for propounding a defined dogma of the Faith.

The diocese of Manchester launching these kinds of attacks is bringing an unwelcome spotlight on the diocese and its unpleasant history, something which likely doesn’t sit well with the bishop, Peter Libasci.

CJ Doyle: The diocese of Manchester is a relatively small diocese, but it is one of the more troubled Catholic jurisdictions in the United States. More than 60 priests and religious order brothers have been credibly accused of sexual abuse. A former bishop and a former auxiliary bishop have been rather notorious for moving molesters around and protecting them. We had the chancellor of the diocese and the public face of the diocese Monsignor Edward Arsenault who went to prison for a few years ago for embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars in church funds to maintain a lavish lifestyle and to support the lifestyle of his same-sex paramour. And another priest who was a friend of Father Arsenault, Father Lower, committed suicide a few years ago after being accused of sexual abuse. This is one of the more really problematic diocese in the United States.

Brother Andre Marie is insistent that what is being charged is completely fallacious and that they are 100% faithful to the teaching of the Church.

Br. Andre Marie: We believe that we’re faithful to the teachings of the Church. We wouldn’t be so confident about taching the necessity of the Church for salvation if we didn’t have that on a divine assurance from the one institution on earth that is competent to teach man how it is we are saved. I believe we hold the Church’s teaching on no salvation outside the Church as the Church has always taught it.

Church Militant has learned that in response to the canonical precepts imposed by Fr. de Laire in January, the members of St. Benedict Center have filed hierarchical recourse against the measures before the Holy See and prayerfully await a decision. They have also retained civil counsel should any litigation in the civil courts become necessary.

In the meantime, they continue their remarkable work through the suffering.

Br. Andre Marie: It’s very tragic. It is utterly devastating to go into a place where you used to go to and kneel and pray to Our Lord in quiet prayer and now he’s not there. I mean, he’s everywhere by his omnipresence, but he’s not there sacramentally in the tabernacle. So it’s been devastating. It’s been a real moral blow to the community.

Anyone who would like to support the exemplary brothers and sisters of the St. Benedict Center, please just click on the link provided to help them out. Fighting off the attacks is not only costly spiritually, it also can bring a hefty financial bill as well.

Coming to you from the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, this is Michael Voris for Church Militant.

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

Pro-Abortion Snobbery

/in , , , , , , , /by

David Carlin: What factors divide pro-life from pro-choice Americans? Mostly, it’s the difference between humility and arrogance.

This column is about abortion, but it will take a moment or two to get to the point.  Please bear with me.

If ever there was an obvious example of fallacious reasoning, it’s this: “I am rich, and you are not.  Therefore I’m right, and you’re wrong.”

What could be more stupid than an argument along these lines?  And yet this is precisely the reasoning that has been used, century after century, by those in the higher classes to dismiss complaints made by persons from the lower classes.  This is the reasoning that permitted lords of the manor to dismiss complaints by serfs, slaveholders to dismiss complaints by slaves, mill-owners to dismiss complaints by factory hands, etc.

In a society that places great value on wealth (and what society does not place great value on wealth?), rich people cannot help but feel that they are superior people: not just superior in wealth, but superior in almost every way.  And if you are superior in almost every way, then you must be superior in judgment.

If it happens, then, that a person from the lower classes disagrees with you, it becomes obvious – does it not? – that you must be right and the other must be wrong.

Your rightness and his wrongness are so obvious, in fact, that there really is no need for you (the rich person) to examine the other fellow’s case.  Save yourself time and trouble by dismissing it from the get-go as unworthy of consideration.

And don’t waste a lot of time trying to explain to the other fellow why he’s wrong. Out of a noblesse oblige kind of courtesy, you might offer him a brief explanation; but when you see (as you soon will) that he doesn’t buy it, move on to something else.

And now to abortion.  Considered on purely intellectual merits, the anti-abortion argument is vastly superior to the pro-abortion argument.  The anti-abortion or pro-life side argues that the entity that gets killed in an abortion is a human being, a tiny human being that grows less tiny every day.

And what else could it be if not a human being?  It is not a dog or a monkey or a fish or an elm tree.  The pro-abortion side has no counter-argument that comes even close to refuting the anti-abortion case.  The best the pro-abortion side can come up with are mindless slogans like “a woman’s right to choose” or “a woman’s right to control her own body” or “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”

*

This last is my favorite stupid argument.  It is strictly parallel to, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave.”

And yet, despite the obvious superiority of the anti-abortion argument, hardly ever is a pro-abortion person persuaded.  Why is this?

The answer, I think, can be found in the social class differences between pro-life and pro-abortion people.  The heart of the pro-abortion movement is found among men and women of the upper-middle classes: people who have (or soon will have when they finish college and get a few years older) good educations, good jobs, good cars, good houses, good food, good wine, high incomes, millions in assets, many important social and political connections, a cosmopolitan outlook, etc.

Given contemporary American standards, they are superior people.  They may not be superior according to the standards that prevailed in Plato’s Academy, or in ancient Sparta, or in the monasteries of St. Benedict, or in the Shaker communities. But they are without question “superior” according to present-day American standards.

By contrast, the heart of the pro-life movement is found among women from the lower-middle classes: persons with educations and incomes that are barely adequate in today’s high-price society; persons who lack the millions, the high culture, the good connections, etc.

These women tend to be religious; they tend to have more children than does the average American woman (and certainly more than does the typical pro-abortion activist); they tend to be sexually un-liberated – so much so that many of them (and this is truly shocking from a contemporary point of view) have had sexual relations with only one man, their husband.  According to present-day standards, these women are definitely inferior.

It will be pointed out that my ideas of the typical pro-life and pro-abortion person are stereotypes.  Of course. But stereotypes are often enough more or less accurate.

In any case, the typical pro-abortion activist, instead of taking seriously the arguments presented by the pro-life movement, says to herself or himself: “I am rich and well-educated, I own a handsome house or condo and a fine automobile, I am thin and athletic, and I am blessed with excellent taste when it comes to coffee, wine, food, furniture, music, movies, works of art, etc.  In short, I am a superior person.  The world is fortunate to have people like me in it.”

“And so, that anti-choice woman standing over there – whose education is limited, whose income is modest, whose house is small and unattractive and in the wrong neighborhood, whose body is unshapely and somewhat overweight, whose taste is appallingly vulgar – when she tells me that I am wrong about abortion, I would laugh at her if I didn’t pity her.  What could be more preposterous than to think that an inferior person like her might be right and a superior person like myself might be wrong?”

These “superior” people, let us remember, are the people who control the “command posts” of American culture. Which is to say that they are dominant in a number of our leading institutions: the mainstream journalistic media, the entertainment industry, our best colleges and universities, and one of our two great political parties.

They shape the public mind, especially the mind of younger generations.  If they won’t listen to reason (which they won’t), do we have any grounds to be hopeful for the long-run success of the pro-life movement?

Yes.  But I’ve run out of time (and space) today. More to come next time.

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

RELATED ARTICLE: How State ‘Birthday Abortions’ Bills Stack Up to Federal Restrictions

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 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.

Top Ten State Sponsors of Terrorism

/in , , , , /by

The criteria used for making these selections were:

  • Does the country actually operate terrorist groups in the territory of other countries?
  • Does the country finance 3rd party terrorist groups operating in the territory of other countries and/or provide military equipment and/or training to said terrorist groups.
  • Does the country support other known state sponsors of terrorism either through the sale  of weapons to them, the sending of cash, and/or providing military protection for said state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the country provide diplomatic cover for other state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the government of said country allow international terrorist groups to recruit freely within its borders and/or allow the front groups of known terrorist groups to collect donations which are sent to 3rd party countries for terrorist acts there.

Using this criteria, the first three selections were rather obvious, and easy.  Numbers 4 through 10 were much more difficult and perhaps interchangeable. But with all of this in mind, here is the list as of April 2019.

#1 – TURKEY

Turkey.  Turkey served as the incubator for ISIS, then once they had launched ISIS into action in neighboring Iraq, and then Syria, they continued to help finance it by selling its stolen oil on the black market, and by providing transportation to jihadi wannabes from all over the world to facilitate their joining up with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey provided medical care for wounded ISIS fighters, including its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Turkey also smuggled al-Baghdadi into Libya where he would be safe from allied attacks.

Turkey continues to arm ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood militias in Libya, and has formed its own militias composed of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood personnel with which to ethnic cleanse portions of northern Syrian.  Turkey remains as one of the primary supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood international.

Egyptian sources claim that ISIS’s stolen millions are safely stashed in Turkish banks.

The Turkish fascist Grey Wolves terrorist group, once outlawed by the Turkish state,

and which tried to assassinate Pope John Paul, is now a part of Turkish mainstream, and a favorite group of Erdogan.  In addition to harassing and terrorizing minorities inside Turkey itself,  Turkey has established numerous cells and franchises of this group all over the world.  In Germany and other West European countries, the Grey Wolves have enough clout, through the threat of violence, etc., to hold Europe nearly hostage to Erdogan’s whims.

Turkey also supports the Maduro regime in Venezueala which has become a chief transit point for Middle Eastern terrorists to enter the new world, interface with Latin drug cartels, and smuggle personnel, drugs, and God knows what else, into the United States.

#2 – IRAN

Some would place Iran in the top slot based on the sheer volume of terrorist activities it supports.  But, I felt that Turkey edged Iran out of first place due primarily to its extensive involvement with ISIS, the most vile terrorist entity in history.  Iran, nonetheless has an impressive record in its own right.

Iran’s own Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) conducts terrorist activities in Iraq and Syria, and via its al-quds (Jerusalem) brigade, it trains numerous other terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah and is active across the globe.

Iran and/or its IRGC and al-quds units have staged bombings in Europe, Asia, and South America.

Iran also operates terrorist training camps in the Tri-border region of South America, and is one of the leading rogue nations that supports the failed Maduro regime in Venezuela, which Iran then uses as a funnel for launching terrorist personnel towards the United States.

Iran supports far leftist and revolutionary entities across Latin American, and in Europe as well–not to mention the U.S. Democrat Party since the 1990s.  Iranian money aided Spain’s Marxist podemos party to win seats in Spain’s parliament.  Podemos used the slogan si se puede to gain supporters.  The literal translation of si se puede is “it can be done,” but is usually translated as “Yes we can.”

This was the slogan used by the mass murderer Che Chevara, and by the Democrat candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, Barack Obama.

Shi’a Iran coordinated with Sunni terrorist group al-Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11, and has since maintained a close working relationship with it.  For example, Iran has allowed, and still allows, al-Qaeda to use its training camps in South America where Hezbollah also trains.

#3 – QATAR

This tiny natural gas rich country not only is a close ally of the top two state sponsors of terrorism above, but has earned impressive credentials of its own.

Qatar is the primary state financial supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood International.

Qatar also finances and arms al-Qaeda and other MB spin off groups in several countries, chiefly Syria and Libya.

Qatar is paying Tariq Ramadhan 35,000 Euros per month.   Who is Tariq Ramadhan, and why is this important?  Tariq Ramadhan, who has been under trial in France for sexual harassment and rape, is the grandson of MB founder Hasan al-Banna.  I doubt seriously that Qatar would be paying him that much just out of nostalgia for his grandfather.  He has to be doing a heck of a lot for Qatar and the MB cause.

Qatar flies out-of-region jihadis into Libya to join ISIS, al-Qaeda, and MB groups there.

Egyptian reporting indicates that Qatar’s ministry of defense might be actually training terrorist militias in Libya.

Qatar’s penetration of the American political and media arenas, and its influence over the American political decision-making have prevented that giant from declaring the MB to be a terrorist group, and helps to prevent the United States from taking any action to unravel the ideological and theological underpinnings of terrorism.

#4 – THE UNITED STATES

This country has made tremendous progress under the Trump regime, moving from the lofty first place it held under the Obama regime (refer to Ch. 15 in Confessions of an (ex) NSA spy for details), down to fourth by 2019.  Unfortunately, much more house cleaning needs to be done.

The United States thus continues to cling to the 4th spot for the following reasons:

  • The U.S. continues to coddle Turkey and Qatar, two of the top three state sponsors of terrorism, by selling weapons to both countries, and refusing to call them out for their own support of international terrorism, thus providing them with diplomatic cover for their activities.
  • The United States also continues to maintain large military bases in both countries which serve as a “shield” protecting these state sponsors of terrorism from any possible military retaliation by any of the countries they are abusing by supporting terrorism in these 3rd party countries.
  • In Syrian and Egyptian quarters, the United States is blamed for Turning Erdogan and the MB loose against the Arab World.  Even with Obama gone, this resentment still holds true after two years of Trump, because of Trump’s apparent encouragement of Erdogan’s conquests of N. Syria, and his lack of action against the MB.
  • The Trump administration also recently sold weapons to the ruling regime of Nigeria some of which are used by the Islamic Fulani tribesmen against minority Christian groups in Nigeria.
  • The U.S. continues to allow dozens of front entities for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to recruit large fan bases, to propagandize, and to collect funds for use overseas.  These entities are also deeply entrenched in the U.S. political system and exert tremendous pressure to silence free-speech so their activities may go undetected and uninterrupted.

So, while the United States leads the world in fighting the War on Terror with one hand, with its other massive hand it (perhaps unwittingly) continues to ensure that Terrorism will flourish across the face of the planet for a long time to come.

#5 – U.K.

The U.K is still a part of Europe as I write this, but may soon be out.  At any rate, they deserve special attention because it is considered to be the capital of the Muslim Brotherhood International, edging out Turkey and Qatar for that dubious title.

This is based on the absolute freedom of operation that MB members are allowed in the UK, and the vast amount of sums from donations that the MB and its allies are able to collect and use for terrorist purposes in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Huma Abadin’s brother, a high official in the MB, resides in the UK.

The UK also shares in the sins of the EU which are mentioned below.

The UK, like the U.S., is one of the leaders in terms of physically fighting the War on Terror, while at the same time it pursues bone headed policies that guarantee that the planet will be plagued by the cancer of terrorism for may years to come.

#6 – EUROPEAN UNION

The EU coddles and trades with all of the top three state sponsors of terrorism.

The EU has placed itself in a near hostage situation vis-à-vis state sponsor of terrorism number one, Turkey, while also coddling Iran, and continuing to trade with it while sometimes paying lip service to Trump’s call for re-instating the boycott.

As a pseudo hostage to Erdogan, the EU allows the Turkish fascist terrorist group the Grey Wolves to roam freely throughout the continent where they can harass and intimidate Turkish ethnic groups there to support Erdogan policies, collect funds, and pressure European governments to adhere to pro-Erdogan policies.

The EU also allows the MB to operate freely within its member countries, resulting in huge sums flowing from Europe to Middle East terrorist entities.

The EU also tends to take hostile political and diplomatic positions towards any Middle Eastern state that takes measures to halt religious extremism and jihadism.  The EU thus helps to perpetuate the cycles of violence in the Middle East, and in Europe itself.

#7 – LEBANON

Lebanon has been taken over by Iran’s puppet terrorist group the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Lebanon itself, has thus become a state sponsor of terrorism–even though the majority of the Lebanese people (primarily the Christian and Sunni elements) are peace-loving, anti-terrorists individuals.

#8 – PAKISTAN

The Pakistani intelligence service has long been divided 50/50 on whether to support the U.S. in the War on Terror, or to be active participants . . . on the side of al-Qaeda, etc.

That ambivalent attitude is pervasive throughout the Pakistani military and government.

As a result, Pakistan has done less than nothing to root out the al-Qaeda and ISIS cells that operate more or less freely in its territory.

Pakistani intelligence entities themselves run terrorist activities in India’s Kashmir province, and in India proper, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Pakistan also allows Balochi tribesmen resident in the SW corner of Pakistan, to conduct terrorist attacks against Iranian interests across the border (not that we should care about that little bit of shenanigans).

#9 – SUDAN

While Sudan does not actually run terrorist operations on the soil of other countries soil (except for one exception to be mentioned shortly), it has always been a safe haven for groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS to set up shop, recruit volunteers, and collect funding.

With neighboring Libya in a state of chaos with over 300 militias operating just across its borders, Sudan could not resist sending its own personnel to operate one or more of these militias.

#10 – RUSSIA

While Russia is the one state most responsible for turning the tide on ISIS in Syria, it, like the U.S., UK, and EU, continues to support terrorism in other ways.

Russia diplomatically supports the number two state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and sells weapons to it.

Russia has recently added the number one state sponsor  of terrorism to the list with weapons sales to Turkey.  Expect to see more such arms deals in the near future.

Russia also supports the Maduro regime, having sold weapons to it and offered training to its military and security personal so that they can better terrorize the Venezuelan population.  Russia also lends diplomatic support to the Maduro regime allowing it continue to function as a terrorist transit depot.

Russian state institutions have done nothing to reign in Russian Mafia activities, either at home or abroad.  The Russian mafia is now reputed to be the most powerful of crime cartels in Mexico, and thus plays a role in the crime/drugs/terrorism nexus  on the U.S. border.

DIS-HONORABLE MENTIONS:

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Cuba

If I have left anyone’s favorite country off of this list, I apologize for the oversight

Let’s Be Real: Mexico Is A Bad Neighbor

/in , , , , /by

President Trump’s threat to close the southern border indefinitely because of the growing crisis is another reminder that despite the fluffy official rhetoric over the years, Mexico remains a bad neighbor — and getting worse. Honesty would go a long way in building good policy here.

Of course, there won’t be an honest discussion, because such a pronouncement as the above — even followed by all of the actual data and evidence below — will inevitably result in charges of racism, white nationalism, fear of others and more nonsense because rational thinking is directly under attack.

Let’s make this point perfectly clear: Mexicans as individual humans are not the problem. Trying to escape crushing poverty on top of crime-ridden regions and government corruption is natural enough — particularly when the bright, shining city on a hill is right next door. In the Christian worldview, Mexicans like every human on earth are made in the image of God and have desires and drives for a better life for themselves and their progeny. That should be just acceptable as reality for decent people. From the traditional American view, they have inalienable rights from God.

But their government, and the culture that produces that problematic government, does not recognize such a dynamic as individual inalienable rights because man is made in God’s image. And so it causes no end of headaches and threats to the United States for precious little in return.

That the Mexican government and leadership in general continues to operate as a quasi Third World corruptocratic country while living right next door to the most prosperous and free nation ever is disgraceful. The example for how it’s done has been staring them in the face for two centuries and yet they don’t change. Given that broad swaths are controlled by drug cartels and corrupt police, they may be even worse than they were. That’s on Mexico.

Of course, just the opposite is what Americans are treated to in virtually every media story fretting and warning about America being a bad neighbor because of Trump’s policies. America is racist, afraid of people who look different and overflowing with white nationalists. Along with the media pushing this narrative there are the large tech companies, which are of the same worldview as the Democratic Party and the media. If you google ‘Mexico is a bad neighbor’ all you get are endless stories about the U.S. being a bad neighbor.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash. Let’s revisit what I wrote almost a year ago.

“If these critics really cared about Mexico’s well-being — and the well-being of Mexicans — they would be more critical of the corruption and culture that has left a fertile land with a great climate, access to two oceans and next door to the greatest economic power in history, in impoverished misery. They would be calling on Mexicans’ better angels, calling them to change and actually become more like the United States with individual liberties and market economics and accountable government. Trashing America is nothing more than political expediency and opponent demonization that causes yet more division.”

Here’s the tale of the tape on who is the better neighbor.

• Do good neighbors or bad neighbors send their problems next door? Mexico has an undeniably de facto policy of illegally exporting their poorest citizens north to the United States to deal with. Additionally, they allow the poorest residents of neighboring countries to pass through in caravans, frequently aided by Mexico, to also be shipped to the United States. This is what is causing the crisis at the border today.

The 22 million illegal aliens in the United States today almost universally came here poor, uneducated and untrained — unwanted by Mexico’s leadership. The poorest in a country are always a burden, so Mexico encourages them to head north and does nothing — literally nothing — to stop them at the border. The trains of migrants from Guatemala or Honduras or other Central American countries overrunning our southern border cannot be successful without the active participation of Mexican authorities. These authorities don’t want the burden of those poor people in their country — their culture and government creates too many — so they usher them on to America.

How is this possibly being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.

• Do good neighbors or bad neighbors attack your moral character for locking your doors? A nation’s borders are like a family’s home exterior. Homeowners only let in people they want and keep out others. If someone breaks in it’s called breaking and entering and they are arrested. When America does this with its borders — like every other nation, including Mexico on its southern border, Mexico openly criticizes us for doing so. President Trump ran on securing our border with Mexico (because the northern Border does not require this level of security) and he won election as Americans understand a sovereign nation needs borders and the ability to determine who comes in and out. Yet Mexican leaders were publicly hostile, criticizing Trump.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said the U.S. was returning to the “era of the ugly American” and repeatedly called it a “useless wall”? Why useless? Because Mexican authorities will continue to find ways to ship the poorest, uneducated residents to their neighbor? They don’t want a wall because they don’t want those Mexicans in Mexico. They do want them in the United States where they are useful in sending $28 billion annually in remittances back to Mexico from America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.

• Do good neighbors who have received so many benefits by living next to a generous neighbor openly criticize that neighbor? Absurd, yet that is exactly what Mexican authorities do regularly. Whether it is beefing up our southern border security, to increasing citizen IDs to deporting those we find to be here illegally who have broken more U.S. laws, Mexican authorities criticize the U.S. No gratefulness for unburdening them from their poorest citizens. Just criticism. Canada doesn’t do this.

• Do good neighbors take generous donations to help them with ingratitude, disdain and belittling your morals because you did not give even more? The U.S. gifts Mexico $320 million annually in aid. Yet there is not gratefulness for this generosity? Nothing apparent. Not a thank-you note. Nothing. They take the money and spend it and then criticize us. Canada receives $26 million, but that is all for joint environmental issues that affect both countries. We work together on habitats crossing the border — like good neighbors cooperating with each other.

No. The case is overwhelming that the Mexican government is the bad actor in this relationship. The U.S. is the good, generous, protective neighbor.

In fact, America has demonstrated repeatedly that it is the best neighbor.

A good neighbor accepts some of Mexico’s poorest people and provides them with healthcare, schooling and opportunities that they had no chance of getting in their home country. We even teach the children of families that break into our country — in their own language. Now that’s being a ridiculously good neighbor.

A good neighbor provides $320 million annually in direct financial aid to Mexico. The largest chunk goes to security issues and drug cartel fighting, but also to education and infrastructure.

An absurdly good neighbor allows people who broke in to transfer back to their country $28 billion, taken out of the American economy and put into Mexico’s, without taking one penny of it.

Just their proximity to such a great neighbor makes Mexico safer from foreign predators. Knowing they are at no risk from the gentle giant next door, the Mexican military can be used mostly for domestic use because they are a U.S. ally and neighbor. The U.S. essentially acts as a deterrent for anyone who would be aggressive against Mexico.

In this neighborhood, even this cursory look at who gives the most and who receives the most in the relationship demonstrates that the United States is a very good neighbor, and that Mexico is clearly not.

I would not do this story except it’s tiresome and counterproductive to hear the constant drumbeat by the American left and the media that America is the bad neighbor.

It would be refreshing if American politicians and their supporters could actually appreciate America more — a lot more — and stop painting an unrealistically romantic picture of Mexico and a near demonic picture of America.

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

AOC: Reduced Aid to Israel “On the Table”

/in , , , /by

Apparently Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez along with members of the Democrat Socialist Caucus (the Democratic Party) are considering and pushing forward an agenda to reduce aid to Israel the only Democratic ally the U.S. has in the region. According to AOC reduced aid is “on the table.”

Question: Where are the moderates in the Democratic Party?

Who is in control?

AOC: Reduced Aid to Israel ‘On the Table’ After Netanyahu’s Re-election

By Theodore Bunker for NewsMax

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Sunday decried the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent victory as part of “the ascent of authoritarianism across the world.”

In an interview with Yahoo News’ podcast “Skullduggery,” the congresswoman said that Netanyahu’s re-election should affect American policy on Israel.

“I think these are part of conversations we are having in our caucus, but I think what we’re really seeing is the ascent of authoritarianism across the world,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think that Netanyahu is a Trump-like figure, and I think that we — there are so many ways to approach this issue. Betty McCollum even has a proposal that she’s advanced asking the us not to fund child detention, Israeli child detention of Palestinian children. There’s different ways to signal it. I would hope and wish that a diplomatic approach could impact policy.”

Co-host Daniel Klaidman asked if she would “be in favor of reducing military or economic aid to Israel?”

The congresswoman said that reducing aid is “certainly on the table, and I think it’s something that can be discussed, and I think that—and I also acknowledge my role in in this as well in that I hope to play a facilitating role in this conversation and a supportive role in this conversation…

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After 100 Days, House Democrats Have Offered Partisanship, Not Solutions

Netanyahu Scored a Historic Win. Here’s What to Expect Next

Are Democrats Pushing Islamic Sharia Law?

ICE Field Operation Liberated Hundreds of Jobs — Interior enforcement of immigration laws helps American workers.

/in , , , , , , , /by

On April 3, 2019, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) posted a news release: ICE executes federal criminal search warrant in North Texas which announced the administrative arrest of more than 280 aliens who were found to be working illegally at CVE Technology Group Inc. and four of CVE’s staffing companies.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is the division of ICE that conducted this highly effective field investigation which constitutes an element of the interior enforcement mission of our immigration laws.

The news release included this excerpt:

HSI is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for upholding the laws established by the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which requires employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of individuals they hire.

These laws help protect jobs for U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents, eliminate unfair competitive advantages for companies that unlawfully hire an illegal workforce, and strengthen public safety and national security.

Unauthorized workers often use stolen identities of legal U.S. workers, which can profoundly damage for years the identity-theft victim’s credit, medical records and other aspects of their everyday life.

HSI’s worksite enforcement investigators help combat worker exploitation, illegal wages, child labor and other illegal practices. Work site enforcement investigations often involve additional criminal activity, such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, document fraud, worker exploitation and/or substandard wage and working conditions.

Immigration anarchists frequently justify their opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws by making emotional appeals about how illegal immigration is all about desperate people who simply want to be able to live better lives. They often even raise the oxymoronic notion of enabling illegal aliens to achieve “the American dream.”

Indeed, the DREAM Act was actually an acronym for “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.”

Compassion, however, is never a consideration for hapless American and lawful immigrant workers who lose their jobs to illegal aliens or suffer wage suppression because of the massive influx of illegal alien workers.

The rhetoric about how immigrants (actually illegal aliens) do the work Americans won’t do leaves out the second half of that sentence, that Americans won’t do those jobs for substandard wages under dangerous substandard conditions.

It is infuriating that the “American Dream” has become ever more elusive for Americans and lawful immigrants, particularly among America’s minority communities, while political con artists have the chutzpah to invoke the imagery of the “American Dream” to create the DREAM Act.

When the DREAM Act scam was properly voted down by Congress, President Obama created the sequel to the DREAM Act, DACA: Deferred Action Childhood Arrival, by Obama’s capricious executive caveat.

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens do so not out of compassion but a desire to exploit vulnerable workers, paying them substandard wages under conditions that are often so substandard as to be illegally dangerous.

There is nothing compassionate about exploitation!

Furthermore, as the ICE news release reported, many aliens who work illegally not only violate our immigration laws and take the jobs Americans need, but frequently engage in identity theft and commit other crimes.

Anyone who has ever fallen victim to identity theft can attest to how profoundly this crime has deleteriously impacted their lives.

Illegal immigration is anything but a “victimless crime.”

Economists are always concerned about unemployment rates and with the number of jobs that are created or lost by the American economy but omit the critical issues of whether American workers are gaining or losing jobs and how their wages are increasing or stagnating.

Political candidates on all levels of government frequently claim that if elected they would help new companies to create more jobs. Creating new jobs can be a risky and time-consuming proposition.

However, just as it is said that “A penny saved is a penny earned,” I would argue that a job that is liberated is no different from a job that is created. Effective enforcement of our immigration laws can result in jobs being liberated — that is to say, freed up by removing aliens who are working illegally thereby immediately providing Americans and lawful immigrants with those jobs.

Investigations into the willful employment of illegal aliens is known as “Worksite Investigations” and can help to put Americans to work and enable them to support themselves and their families.

To put this specific case into proper perspective, the HSI agents who participated in this field investigation liberated at least 280 jobs, making them immediately available for American and lawful immigrant workers.

Radical Democrats who have created “Sanctuary Cities” and demonize immigration law enforcement officers are now calling for the removal of any criminal penalties provided in the Immigration and Nationality Act for aliens who enter the United States without inspection, even though Senator Schumer has proposed legislation that would have made trespassing on critical infrastructure and national landmarks a federal crime with a five-year prison sentence to deter trespassing.

Cheap labor is anything but cheap, as I noted in my recent article, “Open Borders Facilitate America’s Race To The Bottom.”

Not only is there no compassion in exploitation of foreign workers, there is certainly no compassion in acting against the interests of American workers and their families.

Today more foreign workers enter the United States each year than the number of new jobs that are created. America’s generous immigration policies permit more than one million lawful immigrants to enter the United States each year. Additionally a human tsunami of illegal aliens enter the United States, as exemplified by the crisis on our southern border. Finally, hundreds of thousands of aliens who are lawfully admitted into the United States as non-immigrants violate the terms of the admission, not only by remaining in the United States after their authorized period of admission has expired, but by otherwise violating their terms of admission, frequently involving their illegal employment in the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, as it now exists, would provide strong tools to combat illegal employment of aliens in the United States. However, what is lacking is an adequate number of ICE agents to actually enforce these important laws, resulting in Immigration Failures By Design.

Sanctuary Cities further encourage illegal immigration and hobble efforts to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.

Today there are roughly 6,000 ICE agents for the entire United States of America and more than half of their time is not dedicated to the enforcement of our immigration laws but customs laws and other non-immigration laws.

So, while mandatory E-Verify would be helpful to end the employment of illegal aliens, without an adequate number of ICE agents to conduct field investigations, unscrupulous employers will easily game the system by hiring illegal aliens “off the books” or otherwise defraud the immigration system.

Advocates for “Immigration Reform” are determined to undermine any efforts or resources to enforce our immigration laws and/or secure our borders.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine and is republished with permission.

I Take This Woman . . .

/in , , , , , , /by

The internet provides everything you’d want to know about courtships, weddings, married life, but few of them include the instructions on wife-beating.  There is a brief but enlightening film, produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and posted on Jihad Watch, of a Muslim sociologist who demonstrates the “proper” wife-beating technique.  Of course, the sociologist assures his audience that Islam is merciful, and that the man, the head of the household, should not have to beat his wife every day, and to do so lightly, never to hit her face or head, bruise, break bones or cause blood to flow (m10:12, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law – ROTT).  But the cautionary statement rings hollow when the wife’s bruises will never be seen because she must be covered from head to toe.  And, should she become inured to the discipline’s sameness, there are other means of control and punishment available to him, all sanctioned by The Religion of Peace.

When is it necessary to beat one’s wife?  The sociologist did posit that there are women who prefer domineering, authoritative, and even violent husbands.  For the most part, however, beatings are needed when the wife has disobeyed him and the strict Islamic rules of marriage.  She may have refused to wear a hijab (m:2:7-8, ROTT) or the finery he chose for her; or fancied attending school with the hope of one day having a career and earning a wage.  She may have wanted to leave the house unaccompanied or without her husband’s permission; she is literally under house arrest.

The Shari’a marriage contract contains her virginity status, the dowry amount, and grants sexual intercourse rights to the male, giving him total control over his wife or wives.  Should she refuse his advances, be too ill or too young to have sex, or if she engaged in sex with another man or was raped,  he could stop her daily (financial) maintenance.  The woman is considered a she-devil, equal to a domestic animal, harmful and with crooked character.  Therefore, he may disallow her to sleep in his bed; or lock her in a room, naked, and without food.  Should he choose to enact a simple divorce by repeating “I divorce you” three times – she may receive no more than three months’ maintenance and could lose her children older than age seven.

The Muslim husband has the right to accuse her of adultery, in which case he might gather his friends and neighbors together to bury her almost up to her shoulders and stone her to death.  The film, The Stoning of Soraya M, portrays the true story of Soraya, in Iran, whose husband Ali convinced their two sons and the townsfolk that she was committing adultery so that he could marry a 14-year-old girl.  The Internet has an actual film of a Syrian woman being stoned to death by ISIS.  About four women per day are murdered in “stove bursts” in Pakistan, by husbands or in-laws who claim the wives’ scarves caught fire while they were cooking.

We are assured, however, that the discipline of beating, although necessary, is done out of love and once that’s done, life can move on.  But from where does this sociologist get the concept of love?  Surely, not from the Qur’an, which clearly stipulates that women are inferior and may be taken by force or bought from her parents.  There is no Western-style courtship – no dating, no music or dancing under the stars, and no dining in a candlelit café.  In fact, there is no courtship whatsoever. Rather, a shari’a marriage is a document, usually signed at the home of the future bride, that grants sexual intercourse rights to the male with complete control over his wife or wives.  Revered Muslim theologian, Imam Ghazali (1058-1111) defined, “Marriage is a form of slavery.  The woman is the man’s slave, and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”

Interestingly, the marriage contract provides four blank spaces to be completed over time.  Below the signature of wife number one, there are three more signature lines for future wives, numbers two, three, and four.  The  realization that there could be three more wives with whom she would share her husband and home immediately negates love and devotion; the religious sanction of polygamy destroys the possibility of fidelity between one man and one woman, while also increasing rivalry, conflict and stress.  The message is unambiguous: “You can be replaced.”  Not only does the man have the divine right to four wives, but also to “pleasure marriages.” Only he, not she, has the right to such dalliances, and only he, not she, has the right to divorce.  He may even rid himself of the four he has and begin anew, with four wives plus “slave wives.”

The Islamic woman is among the poorest and most oppressed in the world, and regardless of her financial station, she is caged for life.  She cannot be rescued when beaten and her husband has the right to not provide an explanation to anyone for beating her, for the Prophet has said, “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”  Sunan Abu Dawad 11:2142.  This must be reassuring.

Muslim societies are based on enslavement – the enslavement of society to the state/ideology and women to men.  The Saudi woman is always guilty, even if he breaks her ribs during a beating, and she is so victimized that denial of her situation is her only comfort.  Muslim women are imprisoned for sexual crimes done by men, yet Islam insists it honors women.  The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. (o4.9, ROTT).

In a Muslim society, the woman’s virginity is the basis of the family’s honor, and honor killings  are acts of vengeance executed by likeminded family members against the female family member, for reasons such as becoming “too westernized,” refusing an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce, or (allegedly) committing adultery.  The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a “dishonorable” way is sufficient reason for murder; methods include stoning, stabbing, beating,  mutilation, burning, beheading, hanging, throat slashing, lethal acid attacks, shooting and strangulation.  Women’s advocacy groups suspect that more than 20,000 women are killed worldwide each year. The UK recorded 2,823 such crimes in 2010.

Sex for the male in Islam is a plenteous buffet of alternatives, and he need never be indicted for adultery, pederasty, infant or youth pedophilia, rape, or honor killings. He even has permission to engage in sex with his wife’s cadaver within seven hours of her death.  During a televised show in Egypt,  Professor Sheikh Sabri Abdul Raeuf, of the Islamic world’s most prestigious madrasa, was asked if it is permissible for a husband to penetrate his wife after death (necrophilia).  He replied, “It is not favorable in Islam; however Islamic law considers it as halal,” it is permissible, not a crime or sin deserving of punishment in the here or hereafter.

Men, particularly “courageous” jihadis, are rewarded with sex with perpetually exquisite virgin women, so that women are not just in competition and threatened by other women (wives) on earth, but also by supermodels in the afterlife.  The Religion of Peace offers no peace to women at any time – not in infancy, not when they are genitally mutilated in childhood or married off against their will, not in their adulthood, and not even after their death.    We must never allow Shari’a laws to overtake our American laws.

Acknowledgment: Cruel and Usual Punishment, The terrifying global implications of Islamic Law, by Nonie Darwish

Reigniting the American Revolution slogan ‘No King but King Jesus’

/in , , , /by

The American Revolution had many slogans that ignited the passions of the colonists to fight for independence from George III, the King of England. Slogans such as: Captain Nathan Hale’s “I regret I have but one life to lose for my country”, Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, General Christopher Gadsden’s “Don’t Tread On Me” flag and “No taxation without representation.”

One slogan that many have debated is “No King but King Jesus.”

Both those who defend and those who wish to debunk the “No King but King Jesus” slogan point to one historical fact. On April 18, 1775, a when British soldier ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England”, Adams responded with:

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”

Many have written about this American Revolution slogan. Those who support it argue that John Adams and John Hancock, as well at the other Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians. Those who wish to portray this slogan as a myth point out that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists (see Molinism). Merriam-Webster defines deism as:

[A] movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

In a January 18, 2001 Slate article titled “Was “No King but Jesus” a Revolutionary War Slogan?” reported:

At a 1999 commencement speech at Bob Jones University, Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft said this phrase was a slogan of the founding fathers. He also said this sentiment is found in the Declaration of Independence in the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Slate asks: Was this the motivating cry of the Revolution, and was Thomas Jefferson alluding to it in the Declaration? Their answer is that “No King but King Jesus” was used but the slogan was “not central to the American Revolution.”

The Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Many misinterpret the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause was not intended to separate the Christian Church from government, rather it was intended to protect the Christian Church from the government.

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled 8 -1 in McCollum v Board of Education that the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction violates the Establishment Clause. Justice Black, writing for the Court, said that the practice was “unquestionably” a violation of the Establishment Clause, which created “a high and impregnable wall” between church and state. In 1962 in Engel v Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the ruled that New York’s practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause.

Perhaps it is time to reignite “No King but King Jesus”? The Founding Fathers would be taken aback by what has happened since to morality in America since religion has been taken out of our public schools and the public square.

Selwyn Duke in a column titled “Restoring Civilization: We Can’t MAGA Unless We MAMA” wrote:

Echoing many Founders, George Washington noted that “morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” The famous apocryphal saying goes, “America is great because America is good, and if she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” For sure, we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA — Make America Moral Again.

To Make America Moral Again our culture must return to its Judeo/Christian roots. Every American must embrace the ideals in our Constitution or we are lost as a nation and as a culture.

MAMA and NKBKJ are simpatico. You can’t have one without the other.

RELATED ARTICLE: Thomas Paine Argues, “No King But God”

RELATED VIDEO: Democrats Delete God – OAN.

The Destruction of Citizen Cain

/in , , , /by

In 2016, black businessman extraordinaire, Herman Cain terminated his run for the presidency due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Cain chose to protect his family from the humiliation of enduring leftists’ attempt to destroy a black conservative Republican.

It is unfortunate that negative press was many black Americans’ national introduction to Herman Cain. When Cain dropped out of the presidential race, his accusers magically disappeared. Now that Trump has chosen Cain for the Federal Reserve Board, the allegations have resurfaced to block his appointment.

Folks, we can not continue allowing leftists to hypocritically use this tactic to disqualify good people. When president Bill Clinton was committing adultery by receiving oral sex and using cigars as sex toys with an 18 year old intern in the White House, Democrats and fake news media said, “So what? That is Clinton’s private life which is none of our business.” In response to credible women accusing Clinton of sexual abuse including rape, leftists branded the women trailer-trash sluts and liars. Let us not forget the Bimbo Eruption Squad headed by Hillary Clinton purposed to destroy all the women who might go public with their sexual misconduct encounters with Bill Clinton. 

To minimize president Clinton’s serial sexual misconduct, Democrats and fake news media claimed any man in Clinton’s position would behave the same way he did; receiving oral sex and so on. Fake news media and Democrat late night TV comics destroyed Ken Starr who was assigned to investigate Clinton’s lies and sexual misconduct. Starr was branded a sex obsessed pervert.

Hypocritically, Democrats and fake news media are claiming Herman Cain is unfit for the Federal Reserve based on unsubstantiated allegations which pale in comparison to those against their beloved president Clinton.

Clearly, there is a double standard. Democrats are permitted to live lives of debauchery. Republicans must live saintly lives or be deemed unfit for public service by fake news media. Remember fake news medias’ absurd narrative that Republican Mitt Romney was unfit to be president because he may have bullied a fellow student in high school?

In truth, none of us have lived perfect lives. The Bible says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But praise God, people can and do change. Moses murdered a man. King David murdered a man and stole his wife. After paying dearly for their sin (crimes), Moses and David changed. Rahab was a prostitute who changed. Moses, David and Rahab were used mightily by God.

Fake news media and Democrats pretending to be concerned about women is extremely repulsive. They seek to exploit women the same way they exploit blacks to further their socialist, progressive, anti-Christian and anti-American agendas.

For example: Women pay a huge longtime devastating emotional and physical price for abortions. And yet, Democrats danced in celebration over passing a new law to abort babies on their date of birth. Shockingly evil, Democrats are seeking to legalize murdering babies even after they are born. Is this the behavior of a political party that champions women?

Sharia Law abuses and suppresses women. It condones beatings, honor-killings and rape in certain circumstances. So, why are Democrats aggressively pushing Sharia Law in America?

My wife Mary watches the TV show, “Counting On” which features the Duggar family. I caught a Duggars’ wedding. I was immediately struck by the overwhelming respect for the young bride shown by her father, her groom and every man at the wedding. She was a princess, presented to her husband as a precious gift from God to be loved, honored and cherished. Such wholesomeness is an anathema to Democrats and fake news media; repulsive as showing Dracula the cross.

Democrats’ and fake news medias’ modern-sexually-liberated-woman has had numerous abortions or appeared on the Maury Povich TV show for a DNA test to discover which of her irresponsible 27 sperm donors is the father of her baby (which Democrats and fake news media wish she had aborted). Which mindset is most respectful of women, the Duggars’ or Democrats’ and fake news medias’?

Democrats and fake news media seek to destroy all successful blacks with a platform to instruct black youths; stop blaming whitey, get an education, work hard, make right choices and you can achieve your American dreams. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for their dreams. Period.

Herman Cain’s extraordinary success proves that the American Dream is available to all Americans; dismantling Democrats’ and fake news medias’ lie that white America schemes 24/7 to keep blacks down. Cain was elected CEO of the National Restaurant Association because he is excellent, rather than a racist leftist mindset of putting the-poor-inferior-black-guy in charge.

Herman Cain on the Federal Reserve would dispel the lie that Trump is racist. Cain would inspire black youths to thrive for excellence rather than affirmative action and government forcing standards to be lowered. My late dad won “Firefighter of the Year” two times in the 1950s without any special concessions or lowered standards because he was black.

Democrats and fake news media have decreed that Herman Cain is an uppity negro who must be taken down, his black derriere wrestled back to their Liberalism Plantation where he belongs.

VIDEO: Rachel Maddow Exposed

/in , , , /by

The Clarion Project published this commentary and video by Ryan Mauro.

Ryan Mauro exposes the hypocrisy within the media. He points out that by directing the discussion, Rachel Maddow is skewing the conversation.

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column with video is republished with permission.

Are Democrats Pushing Islamic Sharia Law?

/in , , , , , , /by

A fan thought I exaggerated when I wrote Sharia Law will spread like wildfire across America if Democrats win the White House. She feared my over-the-top statement about the spread of Islam will damage my credibility.

My statement is not an exaggeration. For crying out loud, the federal government illegally funded a national curriculum titled, “Access Islam”. This indoctrination program outrageously teaches students how to become a Muslim – how to pray as a Muslim – how to perform Islamic “daily worship” and how to perform the “core duties” of being a Muslim. 

A California school banned all Christian-based books from its library, including books by Christian authors. Superintendent Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer says they do not allow “sectarian materials” on their state-authorized lending shelves. Public schools are celebrating Islam while banning Christmas.

Public education is the battlefield of the culture war. Democrats use public schools to normalize the LGBTQ agenda in the hearts and minds of our kids. Upon infiltrating public schools, LGBTQ activists began molding and shaping students into their image beginning in pre-k. Democrats continue to up the ante, expanding deviancy. Students are being indoctrinated to embrace numerous dangerous sexual perversions under the umbrella of “healthy sex education”; BDSM, rimming, anal sex, asphyxiation, gender-bending and more.

Beginning with portraying pedophiles as victims of our closed-minded society, Democrats are pushing to legalize pedophilia along with 11 other perversions. Civil unions granted homosexuals the same benefits as marriage. And yet, Democrats chose to use activist judges to destroy God’s sacred union of marriage. This is a long way down the road from LGBTQ activists claiming they simply wanted tolerance. Today, many Americans quake in fear opposing any demand of LGBTQ activists. Democrats want government to mandate that Christians throw away their Bibles to fully embrace Democrats’ anything-goes-sexually society.

Now Democrats are using government mandates to instill Islam in public schools while rooting-out Christianity. Remember Democrat AG Loretta Lynch threat to jail anyone caught speaking badly of Islam? Lynch’s boss, Obama, was the most pro-Islam and anti-Christian president in U.S. history. 

Democrats use blacks, women, homosexuals and Muslims as useful idiots to further their extreme radical leftist agenda. For example. Democrats and fake news said that opposing Obama’s punish-America policies was racist. Had Hillary won, opposing her leftist agenda would be branded sexist. If homosexual Democrat presidential candidate Mayor Pete wins the White House, opposing his extreme radical leftist ideas will be branded homophobia. If one of the antisemitic Democrats win the presidency, opposing their hate-Israel rants will be branded Islamophobic. This tactic is called “Shaming”. Democrats and fake news routinely use shaming to silence all opposition, while forcing their anti-American and anti-Christian agendas down our throats.

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s TV show was taken off the air for two weeks for daring to tell the truth about Muslim Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s rabid bold antisemitism. Rather than strongly rebuking Omar’s hatred for our ally, Israel, every Democrat presidential candidate decided to give Israel their middle finger by refusing to attend AIPAC. 

Can you believe there are “Muslim Community Patrol” cars in Brooklyn New York which look exactly like police cars? Disturbed residents are questioning why this is necessary because the NYPD is extremely diverse. These Muslim patrols are allowed to stealthily enforce Sharia Law in their neighborhoods; no homosexuals, no women wearing short skirts and so on. 

Respecting Islam, a California public school caved to Sharia Law by forbidding students to draw images of Mohammed. And yet, Democrats defended the NEA funding “Piss Christ” which featured a crucifix submerged in urine.

My late dad was a Methodist pastor. Dad said every year for decades LGBTQ activists brought ordaining homosexuals to the table at their annual conference. Due to the Bible’s clear rebuke, ordaining homosexuals was voted down. Then one year, it passed. We are seeing this same persistence tactic used to further Sharia Law.

Thank God Texas turned back the establishment of the first official Sharia court in America. Do not become complacent folks. These people will never give up and will keep coming back at us.

Traditions, principles and values everyday Americans and Christians hold dear are under relentless attack by Democrat enemies-within. As a Christian, I view Democrats’ aggression as the Spirit of Anti-Christ. Jesus proclaiming himself our savior and Lord is as repulsive to leftists as is showing Dracula the cross. This is why even though Islam clearly hates homosexuals and suppresses women, Democrats overwhelmingly prefer Islam over Christianity. Democrats are banning Christianity in public school while quietly replacing it with Islam.

No, I do not believe Sharia Law will overtake America. But if Democrats take the White House, Sharia Law will swiftly gain government-protected dramatic strongholds across America.