Attorney Lively: “Trump Justice Coming Like a Thunderbolt… [on] Biggest Politically-Motivated Criminal Conspiracy in American History”
Today, attorney, author and World Net Daily contributor Scott Lively gave a overview of how “Trump justice [is] coming like a thunderbolt… [on the] biggest politically-motivated criminal conspiracy in American history”:
Just this morning, former CIA intelligence analyst and strong Trump supporter Larry C Johnson has published a highly persuasive article suggesting that Bill Barr is about to bring the hammer down on the crooks behind the election fraud. Conservatives have grown increasingly frustrated with Barr over the past months for what they perceive as a reluctance to take action on the obvious “alleged” criminal conduct of the anti-Trump conspirators. I agree, it would have been helpful politically for indictments to have come down on numerous individuals involved in the now-exposed conspiracy to defraud the FISA court and to sabotage the Trump administration. BUT, that may be the exact reason why they haven’t happened … yet. If the Justice Department is to tackle the biggest politically-motivated criminal conspiracy in American history, it cannot itself be tainted with the perception of political bias in the administration of justice. Of course, nothing will prevent the left from insisting that the prosecution of their fellow travelers is political, but whatever fair-minded people are left in this country will almost certainly consider Bill Barr’s refusal to bring charges before the election as a pretty solid defense to that charge.There’s also the reality of the “prosecutor worldview” which the public doesn’t easily grasp. Veteran prosecutors who handle big criminal conspiracy cases – like Rudy Giuliani did in Mafia-controlled New York City in the 1980s – live in a world where there’s usually just one chance to cast their net, and so they want to ensure they catch as many co-conspirators as possible when they finally pull the trigger. As soon as they act, the whole network scatters like roaches into cracks and holes where they start destroying evidence as fast as possible. Prosecutors also want the net to include the top crooks, who are usually masters at ensuring there is minimal evidence of their involvement. Getting the goods on them takes time. In the matter of the Great Election Theft of 2020, the conspiracy is much, much bigger than what the Durham investigation uncovered, and it’s ultimate object – the theft of the presidency by voter fraud – needed to play out to fruition, which was technically today, November 12th, the last day (in North Carolina) of late vote counting of all the Democrat vote-by-mail counting extensions. Today the conspiratorial effort – the crime itself — is complete as to the evidence of voter fraud in all of its myriad forms. There is certainly evidence still uncovered, but all the actors have played their parts, the crime is done, and it’s just a matter of tying the case together in one package. There will be additional crimes related to the inevitable cover-up and damage control efforts of individual conspirators, but as of now, the waiting game is over for the Justice Department. There’s another aspect of this I want to highlight, and that is the “shock and awe” strategy of Donald Trump when it comes to proving his case to the public. I first explained it in my article “President Trump’s October Surprise Party” relating to the Hunter Biden laptop scandals. It works like this: First came the prediction of a MOAB (mother of all bombs) about to fall on the enemy (i.e. the announcement that Hunters personal laptop – filled with shocking material – was in the Trump team’s possession). Then a series of single-bite, lesser impact breaking stories hit one after the other like the first drops of rain in an imminent massing thunderstorm. These were bait to start all the leftist pundits jumping to Hunter’s defense on the grounds that the evidence was weak and meritless. Then, once all their necks were in the noose, the storm clouds opened and the deluge began. All they could do was seek cover while pretending the storm was a hoax.Then came the coup de grace in the form of photos and videos so shocking and salacious they drew every eye in America to see the evidence for themselves – exposing the leftist media and tech giants as liars literally caught in the act.Trump has set them all up again with the election fraud scandal: first a MOAB in the form of a vague but grand voter-fraud conspiracy theory, then a dribble of lesser pieces of evidence to lure in the spin-masters, then just in the past couple of days, the storm clouds have begun to open up. The deluge has just started. Mark my words, this storm will be huge and lots of bad guys are going to be held accountable for their crimes and their lies.So pop some corn, warm your feet by the fireplace (all ablaze with the burning ruins of the traitorous Fox News Corporation), and snuggle in for the lightning show of a lifetime. Justice – true justice – is about to arrive like a thunderbolt. (Scott Lively’s Mission Dispatch, November 15, 2020, www.scottlively… Subscribe by email request here scottlivelyministries@gmail.com . DONATE HERE)Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump and justice in the United States of America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Note: A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said “exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved”:
Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature. By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will. I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit. I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications. I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the intentions in the Prayer of Command.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HOPE SPRINGS ETERNALLY
Epoch Times: “20 Reasons Election 2020 Is Far From Over”
Former National Review writer and author Michael Walsh, the editor of The-Pipeline.org, wrote the following analysis titled“20 Reasons Election 2020 Is Far From Over” for The Epoch Times. The Catholic Monitor gives just a few of Walsh’s reasons of why the 2020 election “is far from over.” If you want to learn what the other reasons are you’ll have to subscribe to The Epoch Times:
[1]. If the election results are still in doubt by Dec. 8—as they might well be—the Trump campaign could ask the state legislatures in the disputed battleground to set aside the tainted tallies and use their plenary powers under Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution to appoint and certify slates of electors favorable to the GOP.
[2]. Republicans now fully control 24 states, in which they have both houses of the legislature and the state house, including the battleground states of Arizona and Florida. Meanwhile, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, they control the legislatures, but the governors are Democrats. All six of those states could send Trump slates to the feds by Dec. 8, if they wish. Whether their Democratic governors would certify the slates is, of course, another matter. By contrast, the Democrats control only one current battleground state in which the vote is in dispute, Nevada, with a majority in the legislature and a Democrat as governor.
[3]. Should the election be thrown into the House of Representatives—as it was in 1800 and 1824—each state delegation gets one vote for president, and Trump would win, 31–18. For those scoring at home, that would mean 185,895,957 Americans, voting via their congressional delegations, would outvote 133,888,565 people living in Democrat states.
[4]. Elsewhere, electronic “glitches” have been reported, switching Trump votes to Biden, although rarely if ever the other way around. But this is par for the course regarding important elections, in which the Democrats somehow pull off amazing statistical improbabilities/impossibilities and nip the Republican candidate at the wire every time. Only once in recent history has it been stopped: in Florida in 2000, and there, they fumbled by asking for recounts in only three, heavily Democrat counties.
[5]. Biden made the following unconditional statement: “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”… fraud is fraud, and therefore its presence should rightfully invalidate the entire election, at least within each state where it provably occurs. It ought not to matter whether it involves outright ballot theft, forged ballots, illegal-alien ballots, fake “early voting” ballots, or obviously manufactured ballots delivered days after the nominal end of Election Day. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/status-of-high-stakes-election-continues-to-be-unclear_3572659.html]
Note: The Catholic Monitor publisher is a proud subscriber to the fast growing international Epoch Times:
“The Epoch Times says it hosts websites in 21 languages and 35 countries, and has print editions in eight languages: Chinese, English, Spanish, Hebrew, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and Indonesian.[19]”
“In April 2019, videos and ads from the Epoch Media Group including The Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty (NTD) totaled 3 billion views on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, according to the analytics company Tubular. That ranked it 11th among all video creators, and ahead of any other traditional news publisher, according to NBC News.[18]”[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump and justice in the United States of America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Note: A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said “exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved”:
Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature. By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will. I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit. I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications. I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the intentions in the Prayer of Command.
How Much Fraud Could There Be?By Anthony J. CianiAmerican ThinkerNovember 14, 2020 Many have dismissed election fraud based on claims that there is no fraud, that the amount is small and incapable of changing results, and that the amount required to change results would necessitate an easily discovered coordinated effort. Three months ago, these same people claimed that President Trump would steal the election through fraud. They produced nothing to back their assertions, but they could have made estimates to show the minimal capacity for fraud. How much fraud could there be, and can it be corrected before the vote is certified? If election officials are in on the fraud, as the news about Dominion and the exposed shenanigans imply, it could be so extreme that 90 of 100 people vote for Trump and 100 votes are certified for Biden. There would be 90 angry people saying, “I voted for Trump,” but fraud committed by election officials is almost impossible to correct. The FBI has election crimes branches in all of its offices, but as Richard Pilger lamented, had a 40-year-old policy of investigating fraud after certification. Attorney General William Barr recently changed that policy, but probably too little too late. Corrupt elections are eventually audited, forensically investigated, and proven, and people go to jail. I have heard dozens of retired Chicago employees brag about their role in frauding Kennedy into the presidency. The subsequent indictment of 677 officials adds credibility to their claims. Chicago saw 100,000 fraudulent votes fabricated in the 1982 Illinois elections, thanks again to corrupt election officials who went to jail. Philadelphia, presently at the center of attention, also has its share of corrupt election officials. Dominion’s systems could turn even honest election officials into unknowing fraudsters. What kind of election software offers the ability to algorithmically alter votes as a feature? It is a part of the auditing and testing system, but could easily be abused or misused. And the Adjudication Module lets a “team” decide the voter’s intent. We’re still at hanging chads? What kind of election equipment company is named Dominion? But what if the election officials were honest and Dominion free, and the fraud had to pass casual muster following proper procedure? ImpersonationWalk sheets direct campaign workers to the homes of strong party supporters and regular voters, and contain the names, ages, phone numbers, addresses, party affiliations and voting histories of every registered voter. This information is publicly accessible, available for purchase or obtained through campaigns. Impersonation is one easy way to fraud. I have heard a few stories from election judges who encountered impersonators. Estimating a half hour to travel to a different polling place and vote, a fraudster could cast 24 votes on election day, with no need for fake ID. Under the rules of many states, the fraudster walks in, proclaims their assumed name, scribbles and votes. On the rare occasion that the signature is challenged, the fraudster bails. Hitting 10 early voting locations every day, one fraudster might add another 300 to 400 undetectable votes. Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved away and are likely still registered, and it accumulates, and it shows in the walk sheets. The fraudsters cross-reference the voting history lists and moving lists. There are plenty of stale voters, enough that over 3% of the vote could be fraudulent through impersonation at the polling place. A crew of 10 fraudsters could cast 4,000 ballots in a single county. Three counties of 10-person crews impersonating voters, and Biden wins Georgia and Wisconsin. Apart from fraud, impersonation also exposes innocent people to potential prosecution for double-voting. Double-votingVoters can take the fraud into their own hands by casting mail-in or absentee ballots where they have previously lived. Forensic audits reveal low amounts of it, maybe 1 in 4,000 votes, a few thousand across a large state. Double-voting depends strongly on the ethics and motivations of the fraudster, tempered by fear of prosecution after being caught in routine audits. With Trump, motivation was likely strong. Mail fraud — InterceptionThe most vulnerable part of our election system is the mailed ballot. The signed outer envelope has almost no security to protect the ballot inside, and there is no security to protect the envelope in its voyage. There are many ways to commit fraud with mailed ballots. Imagine a fraudster calling ahead with a message like, “Hi, this is Mike with the Lehigh County Republicans. Don’t trust the Post Office with your ballot. This Wednesday, we will be in your neighborhood between 1 and 3 to collect ballots and make sure they are counted.” Ever the dutiful Republican, your 80-year-old mother fills out her ballot and Mike shows up at her door, just as promised. Working with a driver, three minutes per stop, up to 20 or more ballots per hour, 160 per day, up to 6400 strong Republican ballots disposed of throughout the mail voting period. A crew of amateurs did 900 in a week. Mail fraud — FlippingBut instead of disposing of those Republican ballots, the envelopes can be steamed open and the ballots replaced with Democrat ballots. Steaming and stuffing an envelope might take about five minutes, so add one more person and 100 ballots are flipped per day, 4000 flipped during mail voting. A three-person crew eliminates 6400 Trump ballots and gives Biden 4000, a 10,400 ballot swing. If the driver and collector put in some extra hours to steam ballots, all 6400 could be flipped to yield a 12,800 ballot swing, with just three people and a robocall. Restoring the electionApart from punishing corruption months or years later, when against corrupt officials there appears little to do. Despite apparently losing the election, was Kennedy removed from office and Nixon sworn in? There is hope for Trump, but the courts must act uncharacteristically aggressively toward election fraud, ordering forensic inspections and audits at even the appearance of fraud. Impersonation and double-voting can be detected through auditing, but those ballots are mixed in the box, identical to the others. Some states may have ways to filter them, assuming they are discovered before certification. Intercepted ballots are gone. Ten people vanish 50,000 Trump votes. Biden wins. Get over it. Even if people report, “these guys pretended to be Republicans and took my ballot,” there is no replacement ballot. Flipped ballots are likely unofficial copies and might be forensically detected, if a court orders it. If Trump is only 40,000 votes down and there are 200,000 fake Biden ballots (from a crew of 48 people), catching a fifth of those would change the result. Hopefully, where the election officials stayed open late behind closed doors to receive fake ballots, the courts will order a forensic inspection prior to certification. The Democrat and media assertions are bunk. Fraud occurs on scales that easily change outcomes and involves conspiracies that are discovered. In 2020, there are dozens of potentially corrupt jurisdictions that have acted suspiciously, and dozens of other unconfirmed allegations, and any one of them could significantly change the result.
“This was written at 4 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 [on election night]. The president appears almost certain to emerge with the majority of electoral votes; he has substantial leads compared to the number of votes outstanding, in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, and the single district in Maine; Nevada is uncertain, but he is the favorite in all of the other states just mentioned.”
“His statement in the White House a few minutes ago effectively accusing his enemies of causing a delay of vote-counting in all of the states enumerated, with fraudulent intent, is an example of the Trumpian practice, in Irish football terms, of “getting his retaliation in first.” But it is also probably a fair summary of what is being attempted in some cases.”
The brilliant political and economic analyst Tom Luongo who is a Senior Financial Editor with Newsmax explains what happened on election day to President Donald Trump as well as to America. And how we are in a “psychological war” in which Trump threw the media and those who control them a curve ball by “actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud.”
For the president and America to win this “psychological [political] war” he and we have “to show it by fighting tooth and claw” because there “are multiple paths to not only victory for him [but, for America]… [including] exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it”:
Underneath the headlines the forces arrayed against Trump were building the infrastructure to ensure that however the people voted on November 3rd, the outcome was pre-determined in their favor against him…
… But one thing happened they didn’t count on, Trump actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud…
… And that feeds the plot points for the next eight weeks until Congress convenes to certify (or not) the Electoral College.
President Trump refuses to concede the election, and rightly so. There are multiple paths to not only victory for him but also exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it…
… So, if Trump wants to lead the nation he has to show it by fighting tooth and claw, just like Lukashenko did. And that means organizing support for him across the country. This is why he is incredibly smart to organize rallies. According to Axios:
President Trump plans to brandish obituaries of people who supposedly voted but are dead — plus hold campaign-style rallies — in an effort to prolong his fight against apparent insurmountable election results, four Trump advisers told me during a conference call this afternoon.
“Insurmountable election results??” Really? A few thousand votes separates Trump from outright sweeping all the battleground states whose vote totals are very sketchy and this is ‘insurmountable?’
This is what I mean by the pressure campaign having gone plaid. There is no responsible journalism left within the major media outlets…
… The media will never concede they were wrong, will never report on anything fairly. They are in on the grift. Looking for them to admit anything is a waste of energy and time. Simply turn them off and become #Ungovernable.
This is a psychological war now, designed to rob you of your reason and sap your willingness to fight. by creating an overwhelming picture of Trump as the bad guy…
…Trump is trying to marshal a counter-revolution on the ground and in the courts. The evidence will be presented. Apparatchiks will ignore their orders. Protests will miraculously spring up in all the right places.
The media will misrepresent everything.
It will be up to us to decide which way the State Legislatures decide whose electors go to Washington D.C. next month by putting real pressure on them to act on their conscience and the evidence. That’s the law. [https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/22704303/686256882463112620 and https://tomluongo.me/2020/11/09/u-s-color-revolution-not-so-phantom-menace/]
Historian Dr. Edmund Mazza, a former Full Professor at Azusa Pacific University, who is the author of the book “The Scholastics and the Jews” agrees with Luongo’s scrutiny of the current “psychological [political] war.” [https://www.edmundmazza.com/author/edmundmazza/]
The historian Mazza in the YouTube show “The Meaning of Catholic” stated the 2020 presidential election process followed the classic historical tactics of a “coup” or “hostile takeover” of a country by leftists who subvert the the constitutional democratic process by massive media disinformation and full scale fraud in the voting process.
The historian in the show said “”There is no next time. There won’t be a free election, again… [if we] fail to pray, if we fail to protest and if necessary we fail to go into the streets and try to save the republic, if we fail to do that we will take that failure to our grave”:
This is not just another election. Where our guy lost and we say well we’ll get them next time. There is no next time. There won’t be a free election, again.”
“They can camouflage and sabotage worst than this one. There is no tomorrow!”
“And if we as Catholic American citizens fail to pray, if we fail to protest and if necessary we fail to go into the streets and try to save the republic, if we fail to do that we will take that failure to our grave!” (“Against Hostile Takeover with Dr. Edmund Mazza” on YouTube, 37:56-38:31: https://youtu.be/m5s3XpQsnS8)
The news aggregation and analysis website Revolver News agrees with the analysis of Mazza and Luongo. Moreover, it gives specific evidence on the the voter fraud and the specific path to victory according to the laws of the United States of America for President Trump and America:
The actual Electoral College election is governed by the Electoral Count Act, an 1887 law amended in 1948. Among other things, this law sets the exact day that the Electoral College meets: The Monday after the second Wednesday of December. On that day (December 14 in 2020) the chosen electors will assemble in each state and formally cast their votes.
This day is a hard deadline, fixed by federal law. States must have their electors chosen by then. In fact, the Electoral Count Act explicitly accounts for what to do if a disputed election or other problem means electors cannot be chosen by voters:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. [Legal Information Institute]
In other words, federal law explicitly empowers state legislators to decide how a state’s electoral votes should be awarded, even after election day, if that election “failed to make a choice.” Certainly, such a “failure” would include a fraud-ridden election whose outcome cannot be trusted.
It’s a precedent the Supreme Court has endorsed relatively recently. In 2000’s Bush v. Gore ruling, a Court majority affirmed that:
…the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself. … The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”)[Legal Information Institute]
Princeton political science professor Keith Whittington, who otherwise opposes state legislatures intervening in the 2020 election, admits in a recent piece that “The Constitution arguably gives state legislatures the power to appoint presidential electors right up until the day the electors meet to cast their ballots.”
In the case of a stolen election, Republican lawmakers, then, should not feel ashamed or hide away from what the law plainly empowers them to do. This would not be an act of usurping the will of the people, it would instead be a noble and heroic act of restoring the will of the people that was viciously taken away from them in the dead of night.
With each passing day, it looks more and more clear that they must seriously consider exercising this power. Evidence is steadily piling up that Democratic leads in the 2020 election’s decisive states are built on a bedrock of fraud.
In Nevada, not only did out-of-state residents vote, but the dead rose from their graves to cast ballots as well. In Fulton County, Georgia, officials told the public they were done counting for the night, and then secretly spent another three hours tallying votes unobserved. In Michigan, a newly-filed lawsuit alleges spectacular levels of fraud in Wayne County. One poll watcher says he forged votes fraudulently added to the state’s qualified voter list. Another person, a Detroit poll watcher, signed an affidavit saying she repeatedly saw city workers coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and other downballot Democrats. These are not flimsy Twitter allegations. They are sworn statements under oath. If the people making these claims are lying, they can be criminally charged.
When enough fraud is found in lesser races to throw the entire outcome into doubt, courts have ordered entirely new elections to be held. But with an office as critical as president, such an option is not feasible. Not only would another presidential election cost too much and take too long, but the Constitution simply does not allow for it. The Constitution explicitly requires a president to be chosen by the Electoral College prior to January 20.
If the 2020 election was stolen, then, only one recourse will remain: Republican-controlled state legislatures must act, and vote to choose Donald Trump’s electors for their Electoral College delegation. They cannot be passive. They cannot simply sit around and let the Trump campaign do all the work, or wait for some state court to tell everyone how things will be. State lawmakers must start setting the agenda right now. They must relentlessly drive forward investigations, and refuse to accept propaganda from the press and ass-covering excuses from left-aligned bureaucrats.
If states cannot satisfactorily demonstrate by December 14 that their voting procedures were legitimate and free of fraud, then the law gives state legislatures no choice but to act to restore the will of the people of their respective states. They will be obligated to pick a slate of Donald Trump-aligned electors, and send their votes to Washington, as the Constitution and Supreme Court explicitly allow. [https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/republican-state-legislatures-must-restore-will-of-the-people/]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump and justice in the United States of America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Note: A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said “exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved”:
Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature. By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will. I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit. I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications. I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the intentions in the Prayer of Command.SHARE
Newsmax Editor explains the current “Psychological [Political] War”: Trump vs. the Media & “Corruption of the Election Process & the People who Control it”
“This was written at 4 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 [on election night]. The president appears almost certain to emerge with the majority of electoral votes; he has substantial leads compared to the number of votes outstanding, in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, and the single district in Maine; Nevada is uncertain, but he is the favorite in all of the other states just mentioned.”
“His statement in the White House a few minutes ago effectively accusing his enemies of causing a delay of vote-counting in all of the states enumerated, with fraudulent intent, is an example of the Trumpian practice, in Irish football terms, of “getting his retaliation in first.” But it is also probably a fair summary of what is being attempted in some cases.”
The brilliant political and economic analyst Tom Luongo who is a Senior Financial Editor with Newsmax explains what happened on election day to President Donald Trump as well as to America. And how we are in a “psychological war” in which Trump threw the media and those who control them a curve ball by “actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud.”
For the president and America to win this “psychological [political] war” he and we have “to show it by fighting tooth and claw” because there “are multiple paths to not only victory for him [but, for America]… [including] exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it”:
Underneath the headlines the forces arrayed against Trump were building the infrastructure to ensure that however the people voted on November 3rd, the outcome was pre-determined in their favor against him…
… But one thing happened they didn’t count on, Trump actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud…
… And that feeds the plot points for the next eight weeks until Congress convenes to certify (or not) the Electoral College.
President Trump refuses to concede the election, and rightly so. There are multiple paths to not only victory for him but also exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it…
… So, if Trump wants to lead the nation he has to show it by fighting tooth and claw, just like Lukashenko did. And that means organizing support for him across the country. This is why he is incredibly smart to organize rallies. According to Axios:
President Trump plans to brandish obituaries of people who supposedly voted but are dead — plus hold campaign-style rallies — in an effort to prolong his fight against apparent insurmountable election results, four Trump advisers told me during a conference call this afternoon.
“Insurmountable election results??” Really? A few thousand votes separates Trump from outright sweeping all the battleground states whose vote totals are very sketchy and this is ‘insurmountable?’
This is what I mean by the pressure campaign having gone plaid. There is no responsible journalism left within the major media outlets…
… The media will never concede they were wrong, will never report on anything fairly. They are in on the grift. Looking for them to admit anything is a waste of energy and time. Simply turn them off and become #Ungovernable.
This is a psychological war now, designed to rob you of your reason and sap your willingness to fight. by creating an overwhelming picture of Trump as the bad guy…
…Trump is trying to marshal a counter-revolution on the ground and in the courts. The evidence will be presented. Apparatchiks will ignore their orders. Protests will miraculously spring up in all the right places.
The media will misrepresent everything.
It will be up to us to decide which way the State Legislatures decide whose electors go to Washington D.C. next month by putting real pressure on them to act on their conscience and the evidence. That’s the law. [https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/22704303/686256882463112620 and https://tomluongo.me/2020/11/09/u-s-color-revolution-not-so-phantom-menace/]
Historian Dr. Edmund Mazza, a former Full Professor at Azusa Pacific University, who is the author of the book “The Scholastics and the Jews” agrees with Luongo’s scrutiny of the current “psychological [political] war.” [https://www.edmundmazza.com/author/edmundmazza/]
The historian Mazza in the YouTube show “The Meaning of Catholic” stated the 2020 presidential election process followed the classic historical tactics of a “coup” or “hostile takeover” of a country by leftists who subvert the the constitutional democratic process by massive media disinformation and full scale fraud in the voting process.
The historian in the show said “”There is no next time. There won’t be a free election, again… [if we] fail to pray, if we fail to protest and if necessary we fail to go into the streets and try to save the republic, if we fail to do that we will take that failure to our grave”:
This is not just another election. Where our guy lost and we say well we’ll get them next time. There is no next time. There won’t be a free election, again.”
“They can camouflage and sabotage worst than this one. There is no tomorrow!”
“And if we as Catholic American citizens fail to pray, if we fail to protest and if necessary we fail to go into the streets and try to save the republic, if we fail to do that we will take that failure to our grave!” (“Against Hostile Takeover with Dr. Edmund Mazza” on YouTube, 37:56-38:31: https://youtu.be/m5s3XpQsnS8)
The news aggregation and analysis website Revolver News agrees with the analysis of Mazza and Luongo. Moreover, it gives specific evidence on the the voter fraud and the specific path to victory according to the laws of the United States of America for President Trump and America:
The actual Electoral College election is governed by the Electoral Count Act, an 1887 law amended in 1948. Among other things, this law sets the exact day that the Electoral College meets: The Monday after the second Wednesday of December. On that day (December 14 in 2020) the chosen electors will assemble in each state and formally cast their votes.
This day is a hard deadline, fixed by federal law. States must have their electors chosen by then. In fact, the Electoral Count Act explicitly accounts for what to do if a disputed election or other problem means electors cannot be chosen by voters:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. [Legal Information Institute]
In other words, federal law explicitly empowers state legislators to decide how a state’s electoral votes should be awarded, even after election day, if that election “failed to make a choice.” Certainly, such a “failure” would include a fraud-ridden election whose outcome cannot be trusted.
It’s a precedent the Supreme Court has endorsed relatively recently. In 2000’s Bush v. Gore ruling, a Court majority affirmed that:
…the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself. … The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”)[Legal Information Institute]
Princeton political science professor Keith Whittington, who otherwise opposes state legislatures intervening in the 2020 election, admits in a recent piece that “The Constitution arguably gives state legislatures the power to appoint presidential electors right up until the day the electors meet to cast their ballots.”
In the case of a stolen election, Republican lawmakers, then, should not feel ashamed or hide away from what the law plainly empowers them to do. This would not be an act of usurping the will of the people, it would instead be a noble and heroic act of restoring the will of the people that was viciously taken away from them in the dead of night.
With each passing day, it looks more and more clear that they must seriously consider exercising this power. Evidence is steadily piling up that Democratic leads in the 2020 election’s decisive states are built on a bedrock of fraud.
In Nevada, not only did out-of-state residents vote, but the dead rose from their graves to cast ballots as well. In Fulton County, Georgia, officials told the public they were done counting for the night, and then secretly spent another three hours tallying votes unobserved. In Michigan, a newly-filed lawsuit alleges spectacular levels of fraud in Wayne County. One poll watcher says he forged votes fraudulently added to the state’s qualified voter list. Another person, a Detroit poll watcher, signed an affidavit saying she repeatedly saw city workers coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and other downballot Democrats. These are not flimsy Twitter allegations. They are sworn statements under oath. If the people making these claims are lying, they can be criminally charged.
When enough fraud is found in lesser races to throw the entire outcome into doubt, courts have ordered entirely new elections to be held. But with an office as critical as president, such an option is not feasible. Not only would another presidential election cost too much and take too long, but the Constitution simply does not allow for it. The Constitution explicitly requires a president to be chosen by the Electoral College prior to January 20.
If the 2020 election was stolen, then, only one recourse will remain: Republican-controlled state legislatures must act, and vote to choose Donald Trump’s electors for their Electoral College delegation. They cannot be passive. They cannot simply sit around and let the Trump campaign do all the work, or wait for some state court to tell everyone how things will be. State lawmakers must start setting the agenda right now. They must relentlessly drive forward investigations, and refuse to accept propaganda from the press and ass-covering excuses from left-aligned bureaucrats.
If states cannot satisfactorily demonstrate by December 14 that their voting procedures were legitimate and free of fraud, then the law gives state legislatures no choice but to act to restore the will of the people of their respective states. They will be obligated to pick a slate of Donald Trump-aligned electors, and send their votes to Washington, as the Constitution and Supreme Court explicitly allow. [https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/republican-state-legislatures-must-restore-will-of-the-people/]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump and justice in the United States of America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Note: A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said “exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved”:
Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature. By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will. I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit. I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications. I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the intentions in the Prayer of Command.SHARE
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Newsmax Editor explains the current “Psychological [Political] War”: Trump vs. the Media & “Corruption of the Election Process & the People who Control it”
Earlier today Rep. Louie Gohmert told Chris Salcedo on Newsmax that people on the ground in Germany report that Scytl, which hosted elections data improperly through Spain, was raided by a large US ARMY force and their servers were seized in Frankfurt.
Andrea Widburg at American Thinker earlier reported that Scytl is a Barcelona-based company that provides electronic voting systems worldwide, many of which have proven vulnerable to electronic manipulation. Scytl has (or had) Soros and Democrat party connections. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s Vulcan Capital has invested $40 million in Scytl.
Tonight we learned from our source that Bill Gates also owns stock in Scytl.
Tonight we heard more from our source on this raid in Germany.
From our source: The US government, once they determined that this Dominion server was involved in switching votes, then the intelligence community began a search for the server and discovered that the server was in Germany. In order to get access to that server and have it available for use in a legal manner they had to have the State Department work in tandem with the Department of Justice. They had to request that the government of Germany cooperate in allowing this seizure of this server.
The appropriate documents required to affect that kind of seizure were put in place, signed off on, and it appears there was also US military support in this operation. The US military was not in the lead. But this helps explain why Esper was fired and Miller and Kash Patel were put in place — so that the military would not interfere with the operation in any way.
By getting ahold of the server they now are going to have the direct evidence of when they were instructed to stop counting. They will also discover who gave the direction to stop counting and who initiated the algorithm that started switching votes. The CIA was completely excluded from this operation.
Trump Attorney Lin Wood weighed in on this report today.Biden & his criminal cronies are not going to sleep well tonight. Well, Biden might because he probably forgot the name Scytl. His co-conspirators know name well. They also know the name Paragon, company which purchased Scytl in 10/20. Everything will be revealed.
🚨 SCYTL RAID 🚨@replouiegohmert reveals US Army (CIA?) team raid on Scytl server facility in Frankfurt, Germany to recover "extremely compelling" data detailing vote switching.
oriJONal on Twitter“ SCYTL RAID @replouiegohmert reveals US Army (CIA?) team raid on Scytl server facility in Frankfurt, Germany to recover “extremely compelling” data detailing vote switching. THREAD for updates 🏻 https://t.co/ejJSsJkvxZ”twitter.com
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE PLOT THICKENS
Below is an email forwarded to me by one of our members from Pam Bondi who legally supported Trump to victory over the impeachment trial. This will give you amazing insight as to what we can and will expect nothing more than victory. Keep standing and praying.
Blessings and prayers, Eleanor Wilkerson
From Pam Bondi
Ok in a nutshell. This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale. It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote.This is where it gets good.The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans, and 19 by Democrats.They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar event will take place. This is The law. This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi. This will all happen in January. The only way President Trump won’t be President is if he concedes the election and that will never happen So stop watching the fake news and don’t let your heart be troubled and live your life knowing this will all work out. President Trump will remain President.
Another fun fact, they called Gore the President Elect for 30 days in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner. And two people that were part of that decision was none other than new Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep them from being confirmed.
Home | The National Women’s Prayer and Voting Army
Our goal is to have millions of women across the country commit and sign up to vote on this website. We want to create an actual committed count of votes to win the 2020 election of conservatives at all levels of government.
The Good News
Facebook Instagram Twitter
National Women’s Prayer & Voting Army
1114 E 25th St
Tulsa , OK 74114
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS ANOTHER REASON TO WAIT FOR THE FAT LADY TO SING BEFORE YOU GIVE UP AND THROW IN THE TOWEL
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the president and vice president. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804. The new rules took effect for the 1804 presidential election and have governed all subsequent presidential elections.
Under the original rules of the Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number equaled a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the presidential candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president. In cases where no individual won a vote from a majority of the electors, as well as in cases where multiple individuals won votes from a majority of electors but tied each other for the most votes, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to select the president. In cases where multiple candidates tied for the second-most votes, the Senate would hold a contingent election to select the vice president. The first four presidential elections were conducted under these rules.
The experiences of the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections – showing that the original system caused the election of a President and Vice-President who were political opponents of each other, constantly acting at cross-purposes – spurred legislators to amend the presidential election process, requiring each member of the Electoral College to cast one electoral vote for president and one electoral vote for vice president. Under the new rules, a contingent election is still held by the House of Representatives if no candidate wins a presidential electoral vote from a majority of the electors, but there is no longer any possibility of multiple candidates winning presidential electoral votes from a majority of electors. The Twelfth Amendment also lowered the number of candidates eligible to be selected by the House in a presidential contingent election from five to three, established that the Senate would hold a contingent election for vice president if no candidate won a majority of the vice presidential electoral vote, and provided that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137
States allow the popular vote to determine the appointment of electors, but Trump and his allies could use friendly state legislatures and governors to send alternate—or in the case of states with Republican legislatures and Democratic governors, additional—electors. When the electoral college convenes on Dec. 14, states with competing electors would cast double their allotted votes, forcing Senate president Mike Pence to figure out what to do with the doubled-up votes. If Pence threw out the extra votes and neither candidate hit 270, the decision goes to the House. There, each state delegation gets one vote; currently, in 27 states, a majority of delegates are Republican.
(For a trip down memory lane: Back in 2000, Florida’s Republican legislature was on the cusp of appointing new electors to vote for Bush as the court-ordered recount dragged on. The SCOTUS decision rendered that preparation moot. Also, in 1876, states sent competing electoral college delegations and after Congress failed for months to agree on which was valid, a last-minute deal was struck that made Rutherford B. Hayes president as long as he agreed to end Reconstruction.)
Congress will open and record the votes of the Electoral College in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021. But this time when, as per the 12th amendment of the US Constitution, “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates,” the procedure may not be a simple formality. Because each house is controlled by a different party, each may approve their own list, or both houses may reject the electors from some states. The legal framework is so vague that no one outcome can be certain.
In case of a tie, the 12th Amendment states that “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President” and that “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote”. As things stand, this method of adding up state representations rather that the individual votes of the 435 representatives would give the Republicans a majority to reelect their candidate. But everything hinges on the elections in the House and Senate, also on November 3, since the final decision would be up to the members of the new Congress, to be installed on January 3, 2021. Incidentally, the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is an unparalleled strategist who has already mapped the districts the Democrats must win on November 3 in order to have not only a seat majority but also a majority of blue states in the House of Representatives.
Here is even more on the history and working of the 12th Amendment, from the ConstitutionCenter.org:
The Twelfth Amendment cannot be understood outside of the Electoral College, which was set out in the 1787 Constitution as the mechanism by which Americans select their presidents.
There were four crucial aspects of that mechanism. The first was that the electors would vote for two persons (at least one of whom had to be from outside the elector’s home state). The second was that the electors did not differentiate between the two persons as potential presidents or vice presidents. Electors should simply vote for the two persons they viewed as most qualified to become president. The person gaining the most votes (if a majority) would become president. The runner-up (presumably the second-most-qualified person) would become vice president. The third assumption was that the electors—at least following the completely predictable (and unanimous) election of George Washington as our first president—would quite often fail to reach majority approval of a specific candidate; in that case, according to the original Constitution, the decision would be made by the House of Representatives, with each state’s delegation having one vote. The Constitution also provided that the House would choose in case of a tie vote between two candidates each of whom had received a majority of votes. Finally, because the Constitution, until amended in 1933, provided that newly elected representatives would meet for the first time only a full year after election, the choice would be made by a House that would likely include a number of “lame-ducks,” including representatives who had been defeated in the recent elections. All of these features were on display in 1801.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137
The election of 1800 was one of the most important in American history and, arguably, even in world history, for it represented the first time that an incumbent leader was defeated in an election. The incumbent was John Adams, who had been Washington’s Vice President for two terms and was then elected in his own right in 1796. His Vice President was Thomas Jefferson. This result reflects the desire of the Framers of 1787 to avoid development of political parties and focus indeed on some notion of “best men.” Any such hopes were quickly frustrated, however. Even by 1796, Adams was associated with the Federalist Party, while Jefferson was supported by the Democratic-Republican Party. They ran against each other again in 1800, and both Adams and Jefferson had “running mates,” Charles Cotesworth Pinckney from South Carolina in the case of Adams (and the Federalist Party) and Aaron Burr of New York, for Jefferson. The Federalist Party electors figured out that it was important not to cast both of their votes for Adams and Pinckney, for that would create a tie and, if both got a majority of the vote, throw the election into the House; the Democratic-Republican electors were not so sagacious. They dutifully cast both of their votes for their party’s champions, creating a tie majority vote that forced the House to choose between Jefferson and Burr.
The tie vote exposed deep problems in the 1787 system. The one-state/one-vote rule had the practical effect of giving Delaware’s sole Representative Bayard, an ardent Federalist, the same voting power as Virginia, then the largest state (and home, of course, of Jefferson). And what if a state had an even number of representatives who split evening on their choice? In that case, the state’s vote was not cast at all. Given that there were 16 states in the Union in 1801, nine delegations had to agree on their choice. Only on the 36th ballot did Bayard agree to vote for Jefferson and to break the deadlock (by which time at least two Jeffersonian governors, from Pennsylvania and Virginia, were threatening to call out their state militias and order them to march on the new national capitol in Washington, D.C.). Jefferson was peacefully inaugurated on March 4, and the all-important precedent was set for peaceful transfer of power. Yet the original electoral college system was exposed as problematic, and there was widespread agreement that something had to be done. But what?
One possibility, obviously, was to adopt the suggestion of Pennsylvania’s James Wilson at the Philadelphia Convention that presidents be elected by a national popular vote. That was rejected in 1787 and did not become a serious possibility in the early 19th century (nor, of course, has it been adopted since then). Still, it had become clear that political parties had become a feature of American politics and that the electoral college system should be modified to reflect this. How was this accomplished?
The answer is quite simple: electors would in the future continue to cast two votes (and one of them, as before, would have to be for a non-native of the elector’s home state), but, crucially, one of the two votes would explicitly be to fill the presidency, while the other designated who should become vice president. Never again could presidential candidates and their running mates face the embarrassing kind of tie vote that forced the House to choose between Jefferson and Burr. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress on December 9, 1803 and submitted to the states three days later. There being seventeen states in the Union at that time, thirteen had to ratify it. Secretary of State James Madison declared that the Amendment had been added to the Constitution on September 25, 1804, at which time fourteen of the seventeen states had ratified it. Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had rejected it (though Massachusetts in fact ratified it in 1961!). The election of 1804 and all subsequent elections were carried out under the terms of the Twelfth Amendment.
This splitting of the presidency and vice-presidency did not go uncontested. At least two senators expressed their reservations about the quality of vice presidential candidates. Rather than asking of a candidate “Is he capable? Is he honest?”, Delaware’s Senator White suggested that the question instead would be “Can he by his name, by his connections, by his wealth, by his local situation, by his influence, or his intrigues, best promote the election of a President?” Senator Tracy of Connecticut agreed: “Will the ambitious, aspiring candidate for the Presidency, will his friends and favorites promote the election of a man of talents, probity and popularity for Vice President, and who may prove his rival? No! They will seek a man of moderate talents.” One might well ask how often such fears have been realized in our history.
In addition to its implicit recognition of the existence of political parties, the Amendment made another important change: The original Constitution provided that the failure of any candidate to achieve a majority would require the House to choose as president one of the five top-ranking candidates, with the person coming in second to serve as vice-president unless there was tie for second place, in which case the Senate would choose between them. Now, however, the House would choose only the President from the top three choices of the electors; the Senate would now choose the Vice President from the top two choices of the electors for that specific office. Among other things, this guaranteed, in effect, that there would always be a vice president, who could presumably take the reins of the presidency should the House be hopelessly divided among the top three candidates for the presidency.
This aspect of the Twelfth Amendment became crucial in 1824, the only time since 1800 that the House in fact selected the president as the result of the inability of any of the presidential candidates to achieve a majority of electoral votes. Andrew Jackson had won 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37. Under the original Constitution, the House would have been able to choose among all four, and one might plausibly believe that Clay might have prevailed. Under the Twelfth Amendment, however, Clay was out of the running, and the choice was reduced to Jackson, Adams, and Crawford.
Although no election since 1824 has been decided in the House of Representatives, a shift of relatively few votes in a small number of key states might well have led to that result in 1948, 1968, and 2000. What this means, practically speaking, is that in contemporary America, Wyoming, the smallest state with under 600,000 people, would have the same say in choosing a new president as California, with a population nearly 70 times that of Wyoming. As much to the point, perhaps, it is quite easy to imagine the popular vote winner losing to the runner-up in part because gerrymandered delegations in the House of Representatives voted for their party’s favorite rather than the person who actually received a majority of their state’s popular vote.
Because of the potential disconnect between the popular vote and the result of the electoral vote (or potential vote in the House), there have been recurrent proposals simply to elect the president by popular vote. If, though, one shares any of White’s or Tracy’s concerns about the vice presidency, popular election would not necessarily assuage them if one were forced to vote for the president and vice-president as a single ticket. (Political scientists have determined that voters rarely cast their vote on the basis of the vice presidential candidate.)blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/cb765801-eb4b-4e8e-8526-544958d89137
One possible reform is to adopt the practice in many states and “unbundle” the election of our two top executive branch officials. That is, just as in many states candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run entirely separate campaigns, meaning that sometimes the governor is from one party and the lieutenant governor from another, one could imagine separate elections for the president and vice president. Even within the electoral college, we could imagine voting for two slates of electors, one charged with choosing the president, the other picking the vice president. Most of the time, of course, voters would pick the slates of the same political party. But one can imagine that at least on occasion voters might be so put off by the vice presidential candidate that they would “split” their ticket. That very possibility might serve to discipline presidential candidates more than is now the case, especially because candidates who win the presidential nomination today basically exercise unlimited discretion in choosing their running mates. This was not the case before the 20th century, when political conventions often exercised real choice in picking both candidates.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HOLD ON, Joe Biden!!! THE PLAY IS NOT OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY SINGS
“Whilst in Rome before the 2005 papal conclave, the cardinals who were members of the Saint Gallen Group sent their host Ivo Fürer a card saying: ‘We are here together in the spirit of Saint Gallen,’ and before the conclave they came together for a talk over dinner. According to an anonymous cardinal’s excerpts from whose diary were published by (Lucio) Brunelli, two of them, Lehmann and Danneels, were ‘the thinking core’ of the reformisti during the conclave. These reformisti did not want to vote for Joseph Ratzinger, and tried to prevent his election by giving all their votes to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who thus might achieve a blocking minority. They succeeded, but Bergoglio, ‘almost in tears,’ begged not to be elected. Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI.” —A brief summary of the actions taken by members of the “St. Gallen Group” to try to elect Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) as Pope in 2005. The effort was repeated, and did succeed, in 2013. (link) Did Theodore McCarrick have some connection with this St. Gallen group? The answer is not clarified by the Vatican’s just released 400+-page “McCarrick Report.” Such a connection, if established, would seem to be of importance in understanding McCarrick’s career, and how he was treated by the Vatican hierarchy over the decades. But the “McCarrick Report” authors do not seem to think this question of any importance… ”It is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb… coincided with that visit to Switzerland [Note: in 1951, when McCarrick was just 21 years old], to a monastery that was later the site of the meetings of the conspirators of the so-called “St. Gallen mafia.” —Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, speaking yesterday, November 12, to Raymond Arroyo in an interview on EWTN. (link to the video; well worth watching; you may follow the interview by reading, while listening, the written text of the interview which follows below, at the bottom) ”Who convinced John Paul II and Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted, so that he could gain an advantage in terms of power and money?” —Archbishop Viganò, from the same interview=============================== And Once Again, Sankt Gallen… ”Archbishop Viganò Replies to the Vatican’s McCarrick Report” (Raymond Arroyo-Carlo Maria Viganò interview, aired on EWTN on November 12, 2020, yesterday: link)*** First Interview Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 79, in his first interview since the dramatic publication of the Vatican’s massive McCarrick Report three days ago on November 10, has cast doubt on the thoroughness of the Vatican’s 2-year-old investigation aimed at bringing closure regarding the “McCarrick affair,” suggesting it leaves many questions unanswered. (Note: To read the entire text of the lengthy McCarrick Report, click here.) In fact, Viganò — the clerical “whistleblower” who in August 2018 accused dozens of Catholic leaders, including Pope Francis himself, of “covering for” and even “promoting” over decades serial abuser Theodore McCarrick (1930-present, now living in an unknown location at age 90) — is, in a dramatic reversal, himself faulted in the Vatican’s new Report as one of those chiefly to blame for not “reining in” McCarrick toward the end of McCarrick’s prestigious career of public Church leader and private molester and abuser (sometimes psychologically, sometimes spiritually, sometimes physically) of his own seminarians. (Note: McCarrick, it must be noted, has to this day proclaimed his innocence of these charges against him; here is a link to his most recent protestation of his innocence, link.) In this context, Viganò — as one directly accused in the Report of not doing enough to halt McCarrick’s activity —on Thursday, November 12 (yesterday), while being interviewed by the leading Catholic TV network in the world, EWTN, by the network’s lead news anchor, Raymond Arroyo, hit back swiftly, and hard. (Note: Here is a link to the video of the Arroyo-Viganò interview: well worth watching: you may hear Vigano’s voice, speaking in English: again, the link.) (Note: The entire text originally prepared for this Arroyo-Viganò interview is below in its entirety; the broadcast interview does not have the complete prepared text, because some prepared sections were omitted from the broadcast interview.) Viganò does not condemn the Vatican’s quite praiseworthy publication of dozens and dozens of pages of previously unknown material. No, because that publication does admittedly help to set this case in much clearer context than ever before. But Viganò does condemn a central flaw that vitiates this Report at its heart. Viganò contends the Vatican has, yes, labored mightily for more than two years, interviewing dozens and dozens of witnesses, to prepare an impressive “tell all” and “explain all” McCarrick Report, but Viganò concludes that, despite the Report‘s expressed intentions, it nevertheless seems finally to keep hiddenthe most important matter of all: Who in the Church hierarchy in the US, and in Rome, and indeed who outside of the Church, in the US government or elsewhere, perhaps even in Switzerland(!), really favored McCarrick’s rise? And why? Why was McCarrick continually promoted even as many “rumors” about his imprudent and abusive activities circulated, leading even the esteemed Cardinal John O’Connor, for 16 years (1984-2000) Archbishop of New York (he died at age 80, living from January 15, 1920 to May 3, 2000), to recommend to Pope John Paul in 1999 not to promote McCarrick any further due to the “rumors” about his abusive activities (a recommendation John Paul did not, in the end, heed)? What is the real story here? (Here is a link to another important story on this question from Crisismagazine, well worth reading: link. Also, read the comments at the end of the Crisis piece.) (And this Catholic World Report piece, written by a doctor named Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D., who treated a victim of McCarrick, adds still more context to this McCarrick Report: link. Also the comments at the end of this article are illuminating…)*** ”Deep Church” And “Deep State” Viganò’s gives a surprising answer. He says that there was a collaborative effort between what he calls the “Deep State” in the US, with alliances worldwide, and the “Deep Church,” in Rome and the US but also worldwide, an effort stemming from a shared a vision of a less conservative, less tradition-oriented, more doctrinally institutionally “progressive” Catholic Church working hand-in-hand with a “progressive” governing class in the United States. (To see an article on McCarrick’s close relation with former US President Barack Obama and with then-Vice President Joe Biden, see this story, by Michael Haynes for Lifesitenews, which draws on a section of the Vatican’s official McCarrick Report.) Viganò is telling us, therefore, that he sees the McCarrick Report —despite the fact that it is in some ways an unprecedented exercise in transparency — as another… coverup, to continue to protect a global agenda that goes far beyond the particular case of McCarrick… And, indeed, the Report, in this process, attempts to shift the blame in McCarrick case away from those who actually supported him and onto the one man above all others (Viganò) who actually “blew the whistle” on the whole affair, in the process risking much — as is the fate of nearly all “whistle-blowers.” (Note: What this cost Archbishop Viganò, emotionally and spiritually, is a central theme of a 375-page book I have just written about the archbishop. The book recounts my journey by plane, train, car and on foot to find Viganò “in hiding,” in order to speak with him in person over several days. Called Finding Viganò anddue to be published in seven days, on November 20, the book is my effort to offer a unique glimpse into the heart and mind of this increasingly controversial archbishop. To order a copy of the book, click here. It would be gratifying to me, of course, if readers of this MoynihanLetter would consider ordering more than one copy of the book… I hope readers will find Finding Viganò the moving chronicle of a soul attempting to face and grapple with a profound crisis, a profound “moment of decision,” for the Church and for the world…—RM) The McCarrickReport is right, of course, to treat Viganò as one of the central players in this ecclesial drama, citing the name “Viganò” more than 300 times (306 times is the precise count many have published). This means that Vigano’s name appears in this Report more often than any other name. (Viganò joked in his first, preliminary comment on the Report two days ago that this fact means the document might actually have rightly been entitled the “Viganò Report” rather than the “McCarrick Report.”) But there really is a direct connection between Viganò and his career and McCarrick and his career. Since McCarrick was an American citizen — arguably the single most important and influential American prelate for well over a decade, from the last years of Pope John Paul II’s pontificate (1978-2005) and into the first years of Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate (2005-resignation in 2013) — and since Viganò was during the first years of that period a key, high-ranking official in the Roman Curia, receiving information about bishops from around the world, and was, for the last years of that period, from 2011 to 2016, precisely the Holy See’s “nuncio” or ambassador to the United States of America, Viganò was indeed for about 20 years in a responsible “intermediary position” between the US hierarchy, therefore, between McCarrick, arguably the US hierarchy’s most influential member, and the Holy See. For this reason, Viganò says, he feels obliged to respond promptly to the Vatican’s McCarrick Report. A Paradox, A Mystery… And precisely here is a… paradox, a mystery. Though Viganò is, of all living Church officials, the one who, arguably, was placed ex ufficio in two strategic posts from which he could observe the “McCarrick case” better than almost anyone else and so to observe “how things went down”… Viganò wasnever asked to give any testimonyto the authors of this McCarrick Report(!). (Note: Both Emeritus Pope Benedict and Pope Franciswerequestioned by the investigators who prepared the McCarrick Report, link.) Viganò says the fact that he was not asked to testify is “incredible,” and he seems to have a point. Though Viganò’s name is mentioned throughout the text — a total of 306 times, as we said — the investigative team, over two years, never once asked to speak with him. More than that: this Report in the end openly criticizes Viganò, saying Viganò “did not come forward” to contribute to the inquiry(!). Viganò responds to this charge quite sharply: “It is completely incomprehensible and anomalous,” he says in the Arroyo interview, “that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify. But it is even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me.” Another Mystery: What Happened in St. Gallen, Switzerland? A second point: Viganò highlights in this Arroyo interview the complete absence — except for a tiny footnote near the very end of the report — of any testimony from, or even mention of, James Grein, the now-middle-aged American man who came forward to say McCarrick had molested him multiple times when he was a boy (here is a link to one overview story on Grein’s case). This absence of Grein is notable, Viganò says in the Arroyo interview, because Grein “had the courage to denounce him (McCarrick) publicly” for his abusive behavior toward him, when none of McCarrick’s other victims would. In this connection, Viganò, makes an interesting point that has up to now not been much noted. Viganò says in this interview, regarding McCarrick and Grein: “From the public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly ordained priest — coincided with” a visit to Switzerland, “to a monastery that was later the site of the meetings of the conspirators of the so-called ‘St. Gallen mafia.’” (Sankt Gallen is the name of the town in German, San Gallen in Italian, and St. Gallen in English; it is a town tucked into the upper northeast corner of Switzerland, not far from Zurich, and not far from Switzerland’s borders with Germany and Austria.) The “St. Gallen mafia” was the name given (in jest) in 2015 by the late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels (1933-2019), one of the St. Gallen group’s members. The term referred to a group of influential, progressive Catholic prelates who met annually from 1996 to 2006 (some say the group was formed as early as 1991) in the Swiss town of St. Gallen to discuss how to “bring the Church up to date.” The group is said to have concluded that a key step would be… to elect Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy. The effort was first made, without success, in 2005. Pope Benedict was elected. The effort was made again, successfully, in 2013… (Note: For background info on the “San Gallen ‘mafia'” see this quite simple, not exhaustive or definitive, but useful Wikipedia entry: link.) (Note: See this video of Grein being interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall on this matter of McCarrick and St. Gallen, link.) (Note: See this article on the video, link. Grein is quoted saying: “My grandfather was from Sankt Gallen, Switzerland.” Grein says McCarrick first traveled to Sankt Gallen to meet his grandfather’s friends. “Sankt Gallen is not a very large city. And my grandfather knew everybody. And so he introduced McCarrick to everybody. And in fact, he (McCarrick) went there on a regular basis – on a yearly basis – probably for 20 years.”(!) Grein further says that McCarrick went to visit a language school in Sankt Gallen in 1951 [note: McCarrick, born in 1930, would have been then just 21] and came back a different man – someone who wanted to be no longer a parish priest, but a power player within the hierarchy of the Church. When McCarrick came back, says Grein, his grandfather — a wealthy and influential man — introduced McCarrick to powerful members of the American episcopacy like Cardinals Spellman and Cooke.)*** A third point Viganò makes is to dispute the Report’s accusation that Viganò lied in his 2018 Testimony when he stated that “sanctions” had been placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, including restriction of movement in an official capacity. The Vatican’s report seems to argue that, because McCarrick continued for another 10 years to travel and attend international events, there must have been no instructions for him to curtail this activity. Viganò responds: “If this is so, it means that despite the cardinal’s reprehensible conduct, the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measures against McCarrick, which confirms my denunciation of the corruption of the Curia,” Viganò said.*** Raymond Arroyo in the interview also asks Viganò about the claim the McCarrick Report makes that Vigano failed to investigate the credibility of another McCarrick accuser, “Priest 3.” Viganò’s response: “It is the writers of the Report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they have concocted in order to crush me and discredit me,” and he points out that the report itself confirms “there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I, in turn, informed Cardinal Ouellet.” Asked about the apparent placement of blame on Pope John Paul II’s decision to promote McCarrick, Viganò said, “Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated, following the model of the discrediting operations that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who opposed the regime.” “In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was definitely Cardinal [Angelo] Sodano. He was Secretary of State until September 2006 — all information came to him. In November 2000, Nuncio [Gabriel] Montalvo sent him his report and the accusations of grave abuse committed by McCarrick,” he said. With regard to Pope Benedict XVI, against whom the report also points an accusing finger, Viganò said, “…the ones who had daily, direct access to the pope were the Secretary of State [Tarcisio] Bertone and the Substitute Sandri, who were able to control and filter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father…Once again, the Report speaks for itself.” Here below is the full text of Viganò’s November 12 interview. The interview was prepared in advanced, in writing. The text of the broadcast interview, that is, the transcription (link) is somewhat different from the text of the prepared, written interview (link). Below, I have put in three dots within parentheses to show where the spoken interview breaks off, then placed brackets around passages in the prepared text not spoken in the broadcast interview. Those bracketed sections should be skipped over by anyone listening to the interview and following along with the text. —RM===================== VIGANÒ: WHY DIDN’T THE VATICAN CALL ME TO TESTIFY? Interview by Raymond Arroyo with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (link to a transcript of what was actually said on the show; link to the full interview as it was originally intended, and has been published in several places: link). Broadcast on EWTN on November 12, 2020Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report claims you “did not come forward” to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry: were you asked to provide information for this McCarrick Report? Did anyone reach out to you? Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a Report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having presented myself to testify in this Vatican inquiry on Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process (…) [ …on the basis of evidence gathered in the investigation phase. My first intervention about McCarrick, which I made as Delegate for the Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, goes back to December 6, 2006, following a report of the then-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. Subsequently, in 2008, I presented a second Memorandum that reported facts of such gravity and in such detail that it led me to recommend that McCarrick be deposed as Cardinal and that he be reduced to the lay state. My Testimony of August 2018 is known to everyone, as well as my subsequent declarations. ] (…) Raymond Arroyo: So archbishop, they never reached out to you then, to ask you to contribute to the Report, or to interview you? Archbishop Viganò: It is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify, but even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. And let it not be said to me that I had made myself untraceable: because the Secretariat of State has my personal email address, which is still alive and never has been changed (…) [ On the other hand, just as I was not consulted for the drafting of the McCarrick Report, so also in 2012, the three cardinals whom Benedict XVI placed in charge of the investigation of Vatileaks 1, did not call upon me to give testimony, even though I was also personally involved. Only after my explicit request, did Cardinal Julian Herranz, the head of the Commission, permit me to give a deposition, with these words: “If you really want to…!” Furthermore (…) ] It also seems significant to me that James Grein, the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestations who had the courage to denounce him publicly, does not appear in the Report, and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would have also reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s. Raymond Arroyo: Hmmmm… Interesting… Go ahead… Archbishop Viganò: From the public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly-ordained priest — coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meetings of the conspirators of the so-called “St. Gallen mafia.” And according to the declarations of the deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI. (…) [ I recall that during a conference at Villanova University on October 11, 2013 (…) ] Then-Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the General Congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few months earlier [in March 2013]. I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that has such an obvious conflict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused. How can Bergoglio and the Secretariat of State that depends on him pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican with an abnormal frequency; when in June 2013 he was tasked [by Bergoglio] with making a diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated attempts at cover-up and denial of their responsibilities are the cause of the systematic effort to discredit me as a witness, in order not to bring to light the complicity and circumstances that exist between them and McCarrick himself?Raymond Arroyo: The Pope, according to the Report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick’s activities or restrictions on McCarrick in June of 2013. The Pope was certain that “You as nuncio never told him that McCarrick had committed crimes against any person, whether adult or minor, or described McCarrick as a serial predator.” Your response? Archbishop Viganò: Yes.This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testified in my 2018 Memoir: I answered him with complete frankness […]: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?”He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not. (Unquote.) It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience, and that Bergoglio had also authorized him to go to China. What was the point of asking me for an opinion, when Bergoglio already held McCarrick in the highest esteem? (…) [ McCarrick meanwhile came quietly to Rome, received assignments from the Vatican, including official ones, and carried on with his activities as if nothing had happened. ] (…) And in May 2014, I learned from the Washington Times of a trip made by McCarrick to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State. (…) [ (the Secretary of State was then John Kerry): this trip is also mentioned in the Report. We are talking about 2014. ] In the beginning of 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American Cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events, and not to make trips. For this reason (…) [ given the way that McCarrick was being treated ](…) I asked, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin to ask if the sanctions against McCarrick were still to be considered valid. But I received no response whatsoever. Raymond Arroyo : And, Your Excellency, you saw, the Report says there is no documentation of this, they don’t have documentation, so therefore they dispute it… You would say what to that? Archbishop Viganò: Yes. I was not able to go all along the 400 pages and all the documents. But you know, it is interesting that they didn’t produce, in order to cover up also, Cardinal Parolin, who did not answer to me… [ At that point, having reported to the Pope in person, and having received no answer from the Secretary of State, what could I still do? To whom could I appeal? ] And from the Report, I learn that McCarrick’s’ continuous assignments and travels abroad were considered by Archbishop Wuerl, Cardinal Wuerl, and even by Nuncio Sambi (deceased in 2011) as a “sufficient form of removal” (cf. footnote 1013 of the Report). And I remain sincerely shocked to learn from the Report that: …the indications were not “sanctions”; they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick “the obligation” of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio (cf. footnote 1006, ibidem). If this is so, it means that despite the Cardinal’s reprehensible conduct, the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measures against McCarrick, which confirms my denunciation of the corruption of the Curia.Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the Report goes to great pains to attempt to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3. (They brush by the fact that it was you who brought these concerns to the Holy See, to Cardinal Ouellet, in the first place). Did you avoid placing yourself “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3”? They said you never contacted the priest, the Vicar General of Metuchen, or the bishop as instructed. Your reaction? Archbishop Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandals to light, and that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed Nuncio to the United States. In the Report, I am accused of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusations made by “Priest 3” (…) We will not mention his name. (…) [ against McCarrick. ] This is absolutely false! It is the writers of the Report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they have concocted in order to strik
…
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ROBERT MOYNIHAN PROVIDES US, VIA HIS EXCELLENT WEBSITE ‘INSIDE THE VATICAN’ A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE ROLE OF THE SAINT GALLEN CARDINALS AND BISHOPS IN CORRUPTING THE CONCLAVE THAT GAVE THE CHURCH JORGE BERGOLIO
Recent Vatican Report on McCarrick Ignores Intergenerational Homosexuality in the Catholic Hierarchy Randy EngelFri, Nov 13, 8:34 PM (12 hours ago)to Randy The “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick caseFour generations of clerical sexual predators. McCarrick was Third Generation. When is enough, enough? By Randy EngelJune 29, 2018 [Resent on November 13, 2020] Introduction
It’s been an “open secret,” for almost 100 years, that the American hierarchy has been plagued by homosexual/pederast predators within its ranks.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that the current debacle over the revelations of homosexual tricks turned over by Cardinal “call-me-Uncle Teddy” McCarrick has provided an albeit totally unexpected but welcome opportunity for the handful of decent prelates who still have their religious and moral miters on straight to demonstrate to the long-suffering Catholic laity that they are both willing and able to take the lead in lancing and draining the infectious carbuncles of perversity and immorality that threatens the entire Body and Soul of the Catholic Church, not only in our nation, but around the world.
I think that the Catholic faithful sense that there is much more to the McCarrick case than has yet been revealed by either the Catholic or secular press. And they are correct .
What is the McCarrick Case About?
Clearly, this is not just a story of one isolated prelate’s fall from grace.
It’s the story of an institutionalized and systemic crisis which the Holy See has permitted to fester in the very bosom of Holy Mother Church since the early part of the 20th century.
The McCarrick case is about four generations of homosexual/pederast Catholic bishops and cardinals in AmChurch – McCarrick being part of the third generation, and the homosexual bishops he has consecrated, the fourth generation.
Historically speaking, McCarrick got in on the near ground floor of one of largest and most influential homosexual networks in the Church in modern times – the Cardinal Francis Spellman Network.
There’s an old saying that “the Devil is in the details. This certainly true of the McCarrick case, both literally and figuratively.
Let’s review a short but not so sweet summary of McCarrick’s meteoritic rise up the clerical ladder which the Catholic and secular news services have, thus far, failed to report.
I have attached a postscript to this article for readers who wish additional information on the Cardinal McCarrick’s background.
The McCarrick Case in Four Sound Bites· Father McCarrick was ordained by the “Kingmaker,” Cardinal Francis Spellman, Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. “Franny” Spellman, a predatory homosexual prelate, ordained and/or consecrated many young priests who joined the sodomite ranks including McCarrick, George Guilfoyle, Christopher Weldon, Francis Reh and Terence Cooke.· Monsignor McCarrick served as personal secretary from 1971 to 1977 to homosexual Cardinal Terence Cooke. It was Cooke who consecrated McCarrick an auxiliary bishop. Among the other homosexual bishops consecrated by “Cookie” were Bishop Emerson John Moore, a homosexual drug addict who died alone and destitute of AIDS in September 1995. For the record, Cooke oversaw the suffragan Diocese of Brooklyn where homosexual Bishop Francis Mugavero permitted the St. Matthew Community – a religious community made up of homosexual priests for homosexual priests and their partners – to operate out of his diocese in 1978.· Cardinal McCarrick, from his earliest days in the priesthood (1958); to his appointment as an auxiliary bishop (1977); to his installation as Bishop of Metuchen (1981); to his appointment as Archbishop of Newark (1986); to his appointment as Archbishop of Washington. D.C. (2000); and his elevation to the cardinalate (2001), was an active homosexual/pederast preying especially on young seminarians and newly-ordained priests.· Cardinal McCarrick has continued the inter-generational production of sodomites in the American hierarchy by the consecration of at least three priests – one of whom is deceased and two who are currently bishops in good standing. Continue at https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/180629
…….all congratulating godless, pro-unborn baby killing, pro-homosexual marriage apostate Joe Biden on his supposed election by potentially criminally fraudulent means.
As we have known for a long time now……the modernist hierarchy are not hiding their positions any more…….they are now…. right out in the open!!!
We are getting a clearer picture of who among them is with the Authentic Catholic Church of the Ages ….and who among them is with ‘Bergoglio’s Apostate New False Church’.
Words cannot express how bad this is.
I encourage you to take it in, and reflect on how these letters of congratulations to Biden so graphically illustrate how rotten to the core is so much of the hierarchical Catholic Churchright up to the very summit.
The corrupt elements of the hierarchy (who it would seem are in a large majority) are now so brazenly audacious in statements like this, because far from having any fear that Bergoglio is going to rebuke them, they know he is likelyto phone them with a warm expressions of congratulations.
And they are certainly not afraid of the remnant faithful. They see us as being, small in number, weak and ineffective against the Bergoglian juggernaut.Nothing to be concerned about there!!
Can any person who claims to be a faithful, orthodox Catholic, defend the manifest heretic on the Chair of Peter and the ensuing moral chaos that he generates by his words and actions.
If you can ….please send a reply email with your detailed defense…..I would love to get my head around your reasoning.
But surely, surely, surely you get it now!!!!!
How is it possible for a valid Pope behave this way…..the diametrically opposite to the way the Popes of history have acted, spoken and written??
Every tiny detail of how Bergoglio came to the Chair, NOW EVEN MORE SCREAMS OUT TO BE INVESTIGATED by an Imperfect Council to determine how one so profoundly morally and doctrinally corrupt came to be there.
But who among the hierarchy will do the investigating and be part of the Imperfect Council process???…..when so many, many are with him in their outrageously God defying positions.
THIS IS THE NEW FALSE CHURCH Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s messages prophesied would occur in the time of the two Popes.
Please would those remaining faithful Catholic hierarchy come together to lead and consolidate the Remnant Church……the continuation of the True Catholic Church founded By Jesus Christ nearly 2000 years ago???
Our awareness of efforts of Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Gracida, Bishop Strickland, Bishop Schneider and some inspiring priests like Fr James Altman and Fr Mark Goring, are reason for us to hold tightly to hope for the future.
And most importantly, all hope is founded on our God, and the words of Jesus, when He said He would be with His Church until the end of the world.
This is all part of the purification process as we move towards Jesus’ Second Coming and the extraordinary ‘Era of Peace’ to follow.
So now it is time for us to pray like never beforeand strive towake up as many people as possibleso they arenot swallowed up by this elaborately constructed deception now being effected at all levels in our Church and our world.
Randy EngelFri, Nov 13, 8:34 PM (12 hours ago)
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.