Tina Griego is a Free-Lance reporter for the Denver Post.  She writes

some really good stuff and she is a strong advocate for LEGAL
Immigration; homework on issues is part of her make-up and fabric!

What if they left?

Not Democratic, not Republican, not liberal and not conservative. Just
the facts by a good reporter!

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ?  I, Tina Griego,
journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled,
“Mexican Visitor’s Lament.”

I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting
Denver last week.   Hernandez said, “Illegal aliens pay rent, buy
groceries, buy clothes.  What happens to your country’s economy if 20
million people go away?”

Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?

So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS
I found below.  It’s a good question…  it deserves an honest answer.     Over 80% of
Americans demand secured borders. What would happen if all 20 million
or more vacated America ?   This may surprise you!

In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico ,
it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school
systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons.  It would leave
highways cleaner, safer and less congested.  Everyone could understand
one another as English became the dominant language again.

It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the
terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens.
Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not
have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate
because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different
languages.  Denver ‘s 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working
poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals,
schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free
experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned ‘home,’ the  U.S. economy would
return to the rule of law.  Employers would hire legal American
citizens at a living wage.  Everyone would pay their fair share of
taxes because they wouldn’t be working off the books.  That would
result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected
annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over
100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids.
Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien
kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more
than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members
who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our
country.

In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ’18th Street Gang’ would
vanish from our nation.  No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft
from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

America’s economy is drained.  Taxpayers are harmed.  Employers get
rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn’t return to the aliens’ home
countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money
untaxed, which further drains America ‘s economy which currently
suffers a $20 trillion debt.  $20 trillion debt!!!

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country,
costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in
California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of
being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the
EMTOLA Act.

Americans wouldn’t suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant
in our country – brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and
grid locking our cities’ greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and
along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, in
what the New York Times called, ‘colonias’ or new neighborhoods.
Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where
grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and
worse.  They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads,
electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America ‘s new ‘ Third World ‘
inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate,
they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them
personally in Texas and Arizona ; it’s sickening beyond anything you
can imagine.)

We already invite a million people into our country legally/annually,
more than all other countries combined- with growing anarchy at our
borders.

It’s time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization
and our way of life.  Interesting Statistics below!

Here are 13 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope
they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many
times that the reader gets sick of reading them:

1.  $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare
to illegal aliens (that’s Billion with a ‘B’)

2.  $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

3.  $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they still cannot
speak a word of English.

4.  $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

5.  $3 Million Dollars ‘PER DAY’ is spent to incarcerate illegal
aliens. That’s $1.2 Billion a year.

6.  28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.

7.  $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for
welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

8.  $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are
caused by the illegal aliens.

9.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s
two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in
the US .

10.  During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were
middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S.  from the
southern border.

11.  The National Policy Institute estimates that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

12.  In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.

13. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex
crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

Squandering Moral Capital

Published in George Weigel’s weekly column The Catholic Difference on January 23, 2019

BY GEORGE WEIGEL
Share

The morality of tyrannicide is not much discussed in today’s kinder, gentler Catholic Church. Yet that difficult subject once engaged some of Catholicism’s finest minds, including Thomas Aquinas and Francisco Suárez, and it was passionately debated during the Second World War by German officers—many of them devout Christians—who were pondering the assassination of Adolf Hitler. (Their efforts were known and tacitly approved by Pius XII, but that’s another story.)

What about today? Were I back in the classroom, I’d ask my students to construct a morally defensible argument for killing a tyrant. If the student followed Aquinas’s reasoning, the case for tyrannicide would involve a leader who was doing grave evil, who could not be removed from power except by being killed, and whose assassination would not make matters worse. Were those conditions met, Aquinas argued in his Commentary on Peter Lombard, a citizen might even be “praised and rewarded” for being the “one who liberates his country by killing a tyrant.”

With the 30th anniversary of the Revolution of 1989 coming this fall, we’ll all be reminded that there are alternatives to killing tyrants or surrendering to evil: Awakened consciences can discover nonviolent tools of resistance to tyranny, tools preferable to assassination. And consciences are awakened when men and women hear a summons to moral heroism—to living in the truth, which is the greatest of liberators. That is why the current stance of the Holy See toward Latin American tyrannies is so disconcerting. For rather than calling the people of hard-pressed countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to effective, nonviolent resistance against tyrants on the model of Poland and Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, the Vatican is constantly bleating about “dialogue” with murderous thugs who’ve demonstrated for decades that they’re only interested in maintaining their power, masking their gross personal ambition and greed with a foggy cloud of gibberish about “the revolution.”

Now, however, 20 former Latin American heads of state and government have said, politely but firmly, that enough is enough. In a January 6 letter to their fellow Latin American Pope Francis, the signatories, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, acknowledged the “good faith” and “pastoral spirit” of Francis’s Christmas blessing Urbi et Orbi (to the city and the world). But they also reminded the pope that Venezuelans “are victims of oppression by a militarized narco-dictatorship which has no qualms about systematically violating the rights to life, liberty, and personal integrity,” a corrupt regime that has also “subjected [Venezuelans] to widespread famine and lack of medicine.” As for Nicaragua, President Arias and his colleagues noted that the Ortega regime has recently killed 300 Nicaraguans and wounded 2,500 others in a “wave of repression” against nonviolent protesters.

In these contexts, the former leaders concluded, the papal “call for harmony….can be understood by the victimized nations [as an instruction] that they should come to agreement with their victimizers.” Which is why the majority in Nicaragua and Venezuela received the pope’s Christmas message “in a very negative way.”

In 2013, the Church’s moral influence in world affairs was at its modern apogee. John Paul II was widely recognized as a pivotal figure in the nonviolent collapse of European communism and a significant player in the democratization of Latin America and East Asia. Drawing on John Paul’s social doctrine and his own penetrating insights into political modernity, Benedict XVI had made powerful statements about the moral foundations of the 21st-century free society in lectures at the Collège des Bernardins in Paris, London’s Westminster Hall, and the Bundestag in Berlin.

What has the world seen since then?

It has seen a papal initiative in Syria that, however well-intended, provided cover for the Obama administration to back off its “red line” about Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. It has seen a Vatican that refuses to use the words “invasion,” “war,” and “occupation” to describe Vladimir Putin’s Anschluss in Crimea and his war in eastern Ukraine, which has killed more than 10,000 and displaced more than a million Ukrainians, many of them Ukrainian Greek Catholics. It has seen a Vatican deal with China that is widely regarded as a kowtow to ruthless, aggressive authoritarians.

Where is the moral challenge to tyranny? Where is the summons to heroic resistance? Great moral capital is being squandered, in a world that desperately needs a moral compass.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTSMeet The Indian And Black Thugs January 24, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on who the guilty parties are in the Covington Catholic controversy:   The Catholic white boys from Covington Catholic High School—hated because they are Catholic, white, male, and Trump supporters (some of them)—have been indicted by lots of pundits, politicians, reporters, and celebrities, both liberal and conservative. Yet the record shows that the students were the only innocent party to this fracas. None of them said or did anything bigoted, but this is not true of the Indians and the black Israelites.    A group of about 20 Indians, led by activist Nathan Phillips, tried to storm a Masson January 19 at the Basilica of the National Shrine of Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. They were stopped by security who had to lock the doors. This is what the Nazis did to the Jews in Hitler’s Germany—they crashed the synagogues during services.   It is against the law in D.C. to disturb a religious service. Had Phillips succeeded, it would have been a hate crime. If the Catholic students had barged into a crowd of Indians while they were praying, they would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country and it would be the lead story on the broadcast and cable news outlets.   However, this unprovoked attack by Phillips and company—on innocent persons exercising their First Amendment right to religious liberty—was ignored by most of the mainstream media. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, ABC News. CBS News, NBC News, CNN and MSNBC never said a word about it. Only Fox News did.   Phillips also made disparaging remarks about Catholicism, saying the students are not being told the truth about their religion. Yet not one student made a disparaging remark about Indians. But the black thugs did—they called the Indians “savages.” That being the case, why didn’t Phillips and his merry band of church busters confront them? Why did they seek to crash a Mass instead? They are the bigots, not the kids.   The black Israelites bashed white people, black people, Christians (especially Catholics), Puerto Ricans, and homosexuals. Where were the gay rights groups? If the kids called gays “faggots”—which is what these thugs did—the media would have been up in arms. So it is not the content of an insult that matters, it is the identity of who says it.   The mainstream media picked up a few of the anti-Catholic statements by the black activists, but overall they did a lousy job. We watched the video and here are some of the most anti-Catholic statements that were made. [Black Israelite responding to a question] “You want to see hate in the Bible? Let’s see hate in the Bible. Let’s see what the Christians and the Catholics don’t go into.” [He then reads a verse from Ecclesiastes][Black Israelite pointing out a Catholic priest standing nearby] “And like this, child molesting faggot priest right there… the Catholics are a bunch of child molesters.”[Black Israelite speaking to crowd] “You want to talk about R. Kelly. Why we don’t talk about the Catholic Church? Why we don’t talk about the Roman Catholic Church, and especially you so-called Hispanics and Negroes, you got no business calling yourself a Roman Catholic. When’s the last time you’ve been a Roman?”[Black Israelite speaking to Covington students] “And Jesus Christ is not a white man. This ain’t Jesus Christ…the truth matters. This is a faggot child molester. This is not Jesus Christ. If you look in the Bible, you will see he is a man of color” [man referring to a Catholic/Christian depiction of Jesus][Black Israelite speaking to a Catholic prayer circle nearby] “The child molesting Catholic Church here. This is what we’ve come to. How long are we going stay in the Catholic Church? How long are we going to continue worshipping idols in the Catholic Church? Where is Hail Mary in the Bible? There’s no Hail Mary in the Bible. You can’t worship Mary. You’re supposed to worship the Lord.”[Black Israelite speaking to prayer group] “You have your reward. Your reward is your Catholic Church being tax exempt, being child molesters and getting away with it. You’ve been raping children since 1492 in the Catholic Church. You’ve been raping children in Rome before you got here. “[Black Israelite speaking to separate group of students] “When you walk in a Catholic Church, it is filled with idols. When you worship and kiss and bow down to a statue, you’re breaking the commandments of God. So the Catholic Church is totally against God, not even speaking about the child molestation. We’ll leave that one alone. But against God’s laws and commandments, yes. You say ‘Hail Mary, full of grace’. You say that prayer. Where is that prayer in the psalms? Where is that prayer in the Bible?”No white student responded in kind to either the Indian or black activists. They, and they alone, were innocent.   What happened on January 18 has been nicely captured by my good friend, Rabbi Aryeh Spero. Here is what he told me.   “This is a contrived and false episode pounced on by people who hate religious white Catholics and are always on the look-out to demonize Catholics. These people are bigots. It is all part of the anti-Christianism by many segments in today’s leftist America and media collaborators. If they could, they would physically beat up Catholics and take away their jobs and livelihood simply because they are white, conservative, and people of biblical faith. They are consumed by hate. Who taught these people to SO hate white, religious Americans?” Phone: 212-371-3191 E-mail: pr@catholicleague.org

Nathan Phillips, the man who falsely claimed to have been harassed by the Covington Catholic boys last Friday, tried to disrupt Mass at the Basilica of thhe Immaculate Conception on Saturday.  As if we didn’t see the full video to know who the real culprits were at the March for Life, this video shows many more things about how bad these people are.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V_JePgeYzVE

JANUARY 23, 2019

Infamous Scribblers: Virtue Signalers on the Warpath

FR. GEORGE W. RUTLER

CRISIS MAGAZINE

From October 22 to November 30, in 1878, a large fair was held in the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in New York City before its dedication. It took advantage of the magnificent open space before pews were installed to the distress of the architect, James Renwick, who objected that Protestant furniture had no place in a Catholic shrine. Renwick was a Protestant himself, but also an aesthetic purist and an Anglican, and no Puritan; however, Archbishop McCloskey needed money and, as with having a fundraising fair, renting pews out was a way to get it.

Six months earlier, and exactly one block north in her huge mansion on the same side of Fifth Avenue, Madame Restell had reclined in her bathtub and slit her throat. She left a fortune of over twelve million dollars in today’s money, after a career as the nation’s most notorious abortionist. Not unfamiliar with prison, her dismal career had been haunted by what we would now call investigative journalists in the employ of The New York Times. Founded in 1851, the “Gray Lady” became the journal of the new Republican Party and helped with the demolition of the corrupt Tweed Ring.

Times change, even for The New York Times, which over more recent years has abandoned its foundational moral rectitude. Although not proud of its whitewashing of the Ukraine famine and Stalin’s show trials by the complicit reporter Walter Duranty, the newspaper has not yet renounced his Pulitzer Prize, nor has it demurred from the praise heaped on it by Fidel Castro when he visited their editorial office in a gesture of thanks for their support. There was also that problem with Jayson Blair’s plagiarism, and the misrepresentation of the young men falsely accused of sexual violence at Duke University. The latter bears some resemblance to the recent incident in our nation’s capital when youths from Covington Catholic High School were accused of racist bullying. But The New York Times has had the decency, along with some others, to regret the haste with which it moved to condemn the innocent.

Unlike Mark Twain who noted that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated, those who now say that journalism is dead may have a good case. Thus one should not expect much from those who report the activities of others and by so doing arrogate to themselves the importance of the actors. Despite the fact that he was a journalist himself, G.K. Chesterton said that writing badly is the definition of journalism.

When hieroglyphics were the best, if static, medium of telling the news in the thirteenth century BC, Rameses the Great advertised himself as the victor of the Battle of Kadesh, although truth-tellers knew that he had lost. The city of Trent spread a “blood libel” against Jews in 1475 that led to a massacre, and not even Pope Sixtus IV could stop it, though he tried.  In 1765, Samuel Adams, whose only worthy legacy is beer, falsely claimed in print that Thomas Hutchinson, a Loyalist, supported the Stamp Tax, with the result that the helpless man’s house was burned to the ground. In 1782, five months after Yorktown, Benjamin Franklin produced a hoax news release during his sojourn in Paris, claiming that King George had induced American Indians to commit atrocities, and he also forged the name of John Paul Jones to another libel. And, of course, Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake” (actually it was “brioche”), but those who wanted to believe it did so. George Washington had enough of journalists, and told Hamilton that he was quitting public life because of “a disinclination to be longer buffitted [sic] in the public prints [sic] by a set of infamous scribblers.”

There is no need to recount the details of the latest incident in our nation’s capital, when the high school boys were defamed by journalists with the accusation that they mocked an elderly Native American who was trying to calm a confrontation with a radical group of anti-white, anti-Semitic racists. Videos proved that there was no truth to this, but a flurry of demagogic “virtue signaling” berated the boys without giving them a chance to testify. In the eyes of the secular media, the lads were at a portentous disadvantage, being white Catholic males, some of whom were wearing MAGA hats. The “Native American” was described as an elderly Vietnam War veteran. But few 64-year-olds today would qualify as geriatric. And in the last year that any US combat units were stationed in Vietnam—1973—he would have been 18 years old. Mr. Phillips, a professional “activist” for the Indigenous Peoples March, also claims to be a marine veteran, which may be the case, but to have been a Marine veteran in Vietnam when the last Marine combat divisions left in 1971, he would have been 16 years old. This information has been ignored in some quarters. Journalists were supposed to expose hoaxes pretending to be facts, but now they prefer to call facts hoaxes. I speak without prejudice; having been born in New Jersey, I can also claim to be an Indigenous Person. Besides that, as a teenager, I was schooled in a college originally established for the education of what used to be called Indians.

This brings up a contiguous complaint. As soon as this incident was reported, The Washington Post, in its role as the intemperate sibling of The New York Times, ran an essay decrying “the shameful exploitation of Native Americans by the Catholic Church.” For secularists, any missionary venture must have been exploitative and destructive of native culture, even though Christian evangelists have thwarted infanticide, human sacrifice, the cremation of widows, polygamy, caste systems and, yes, slavery.  The article in the Post made no mention of the Jesuit Martyrs who endured torture and death to bring the Gospel to dejected tribes and peace to internecine tribal slaughterers. Absent was mention of Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, who was exiled by her own tribe, the Mohawks, for her love of Christ, Saint Junipero Serra who transformed the fortunes of the indigenous “gatherer” culture, Saint Katherine Drexel who donated her vast inheritance to establish fifty missions among the native peoples, the heroic Bishop Martin Marty who brought science and literacy to the Dakota territory, or Father Jean-Pierre DeSmet who fashioned the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, and so befriended Chief Tatanta Iytake (“Sitting Bull”) that the venerable chief,  impeded from his own reception into the Church by having two wives, wore a crucifix to his dying day and saw to it that Buffalo Bill Cody was baptized the day before he died. Defamation by journalists is unethical in the professional sphere and sinful in the economy of God, but to submit saints to detraction is blasphemous.

The scene of Pope Leo XIII applauding the Wild West Show of Buffalo Bill and Chief Sitting Bull on tour in Rome would probably confound journalists at The Washington Post. Buffalo Bill and his entourage were wined and dined at the North American College there, an event that might have been inaccurately reported by CNN. But these are facts, and Catholics who do not know their history are accountable for letting it be maligned.

The incident with the Covington boys may be more significant than some transient scandal.  One remembers Senator Joseph McCarthy using the media to his advantage, and to this day his foes will not admit that he did indeed expose some real threats to the nation. The young Robert Kennedy was his assistant attorney and McCarthy was godfather to Robert’s first daughter, Kathleen, although he died four years later and obviously had no catechetical influence. But when his actions became extravagant, the Army attorney Joseph Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency?” Therewith the whole deck of cards collapsed. Perhaps the media are beyond a sense of shame now, wallowing as they are in destructive polemics, but fair-minded people may be moved by this Covington incident to recognize the indecency of political correctness. Such correctness is most demeaning when it cloaks itself in an affected moralism which agnostic subjectivism has otherwise displaced from social discourse.

Our Lord condemned “virtue signaling” in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the Temple. “I thank you, Lord, that I am not like this sinner.” There are Pharisees in every corridor of society, but they find a most comfortable berth in the Church. So it was that the very diocese of the Covington students, without interviewing them or asking for evidence outside the media, promptly threatened to punish them. There was no reference to the hateful racism and obscene references to priests chanted by the cultic Hebrew Israelites as they threatened those Catholic youths. Instead, bishops issued anodyne jargon about the “dignity of the human person” without respecting the dignity of their own spiritual sons. The latest advertisement of the Gillette razor company portraying examples of “toxic masculinity” did not accuse any bishop, but only ecclesiastical bureaucrats would consider that a compliment. Pope Francis, off-the-cuff and at a high altitude in an airplane, once asked, “Who am I to judge?” There might at last be some application of that malapropism to shepherds who jump to judgment and throw their lambs to the wolves of the morally bankrupt media in a display of virtue signaling and in fear of being politically incorrect.

(Photo credit: Wikicommons)

Tagged as anti-Christian bigotry, Church scandal / corruption, identity / group politics,media bias, The New York Times, virtue signaling220

By Fr. George W. Rutler

Fr. George W. Rutler is pastor of St. Michael’s church in New York City. He is the author of many books including Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press) and Hints of Heaven (Sophia Institute Press). His latest books are He Spoke To Us (Ignatius, 2016); The Stories of Hymns (EWTN Publishing, 2017); and Calm in Chaos (Ignatius, 2018).

• F

Pope Francis’s Parade of Embarrassing Friendships

Marco Tosatti

January 22, 2019

OnePeterFive

The least we can say is that the figure of Pope Bergoglio is embarrassing. Perhaps not so much for who he is as a person in himself – but then again… But more so for the people whom he obviously favors, protects, and defends. Or for those who actively contributed to his election.

Let’s begin with this last group. Among them there are Cardinal Danneels, immortalized as the one standing next to the pontiff on the loggia on the night of his election. Danneels covered up a bishop who had abused his own nephew, and a petition from laypeople had in fact requested that he not participate in the Conclave. But Danneels was then invited by the pope to be part of the Synod on the Family. Those who worked to elect Bergoglio also included McCarrick (he said so himself) and Mahony of Los Angeles, who a judicial investigation revealed had covered up dozens of abuser priests and who was ordered to lead a secluded life of prayer by his successor, Archbishop Gomez (who, strangely, was never made a cardinal, perhaps because he did not have any skeletons in his closet and is a member of Opus Dei…). Mahony was supposed to go to an important event last year as a pontifical representative despite the ban on his presence at public events, but a protest of laypeople prevented him. Yet Roger Mahony is scheduled to speak this coming March at the Los Angeles Education Congress – an evident sign of papal favor persisting despite abuse and cover-ups. Then there was – may he rest in peace – Cardinal Murphy O’Connor. He had transferred a serial abuser priest (later found guilty) from one place to another, where he had repeatedly abused. O’Connor was particularly favored by the pope: the pope interrupted Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during the middle of the celebration of Mass and angrily ordered him to close the investigation of Murphy O’Connor for abuse. And then there is Cardinal Errazuriz Ossa in Chile (who covered up the notorious sexual abuser Father Fernando Karadima), and probably we are still forgetting some others.

The past is the past, you will say. However, the problem is that the present, the current mess, appears to be not at all different. Let’s leave aside the case of the Chilean bishop Juan Barros, who was given charge of a diocese despite justified protests and the lies spoken by the pontiff regarding the victims. Let’s look at the case of Bishop Juan José Pineda, right-hand man of Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras, forced to resign by a letter from seminarians accusing him of sexually molesting them. Pineda had lived with his one of his lovers in Maradiaga’s villa in Tegucigalpa. Is it possible that the Honduran cardinal, himself the right-hand man and great inspirer of the pope, seeing a handsome young man at breakfast in his house, did not ask, “Who is this?” Monsignor Ricca, whose diplomatic career was swept away by a homosexual scandal, was nominated by the pope as director of the Vatican Bank (IOR). Now we have the case of Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta of Argentina, who was not only taken in at the Vatican after fleeing Argentina, but also had a position created just for him that previously did not exist, as assessor of APSA, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, the treasury of the Holy See. This despite the financial scandals that had taken place in his diocese of Oran (to say nothing of the sexual ones). The accusations and suspicions do not even exclude the new Sostituto of the Secretariate of State, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra of Venezuela, close friend of Pineda (see above) and of Maradiaga.

And then there is case of the United States. The latest news we hear is that Archbishop Kevin Farrell, a man of the McCarrick line, named by the pope as prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity and the Family (in 2016), was investigated by the Dallas Police Department for an accusation of abuse when he was bishop there. Farrell was named vicar general of Washington by McCarrick, and for six years he lived in the same apartment with McCarrick and never noticed any misconduct – or so he says. And the latest news of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, of his cover-up of McCarrick and his unsettling excuses that he “forgot” about the accusation against McCarrick that he himself had sent the nuncio to the United States – oh, really?! – and of the most recent lies he has told. And then there is Cardinal Joseph Tobin with his strange messages sent on Twitter to – he says – his sister. Tobin has declared that he did not investigate the rumors in Newark about McCarrick because he thought they were unbelievable. He was also made a cardinal (by McCarrick), as was Farrell.

Within a framework like this, it appears ridiculous that Cardinal Kasper is speaking of a “plot” against Papa Bergoglio based on charges of abuse. As they say in Rome, you had better throw yourself forward so as not to fall back. Because certainly the list of abuse scandals – especially those regarding Argentina – is not exhaustive. Can anyone explain why, six years after his election, this pope has never – let’s say that again: never – thought of returning to his homeland? Strange, no? What is he afraid of? That other cases of abuse will emerge? Such as that of Father Julio Grassi, condemned to jail, for whom Cardinal Bergoglio prepared two tomes of defense to send to the judges of the appeal process? A fact that he then denied, lying about it on French television? Bergoglio was the spiritual father of Grassi, as he was of Zanchetta, and of others we are not mentioning, all of whom who are Argentines and who had careers within the Church marred by less than exemplary sexual conduct.

And then there is the silence of the pope, which has now lasted since August 26, on McCarrick. The pope was informed by Archbishop Viganò about McCarrick’s malfeasance a few months after his election, but nevertheless, he used McCarrick as his more or less official envoy, and also as his counselor for nominations of bishops and cardinals in the United States (see above). Did he know? And if he knew, why did he choose to use a person so – at the very least – questionable?

The fact that McCarrick may not be an isolated case leads us to think that the pontiff chooses or prefers people who have a past, and at least one skeleton in their closet. Who is more obedient and more faithful than men who are afraid? Is this a pope who governs, not with the Gospel, but rather with dossiers? It is difficult to dispel this suspicion. And Kasper speaks about “plots.” Oh, please!

This article was translated from Italian by Giuseppe Pellegrino. The original can be found at Marco Tosatti’s blog.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.  So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. 

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

 Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters.  The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do.  Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.   May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes

__________________________________________

Just How Many Muslims Won Political Office In 2018? The Numbers May Surprise You! https://freedomoutpost.com/just-how-many-muslims-won-political-office-in-2018-the-numbers-may-surprise-you/ Many of you are familiar with a couple of congressional seats that were picked up by Muslim women and the first Muslim state attorney general put into office in Minnesota.  What you may not realize is just how many political offices were filled by electing Muslims in 2018.  Note the high percentage of Muslims voting, and their openness to promote the fact that they want to “change” our culture and society. All of this information comes from the Muslim organization,  JETPAC, which stands for Justice Education Technology Political Advocacy Center.  According to their Mission Statement:QUOTE:“Jetpac (Justice Education Technology Political Advocacy Center) seeks to build a strong American Muslim political infrastructure and increase our community’s influence and engagement.We will take our place at the table across all levels of government. Our philosophy of change is rooted in a community-based approach, grassroots mobilization, civics training. We have developed our own training curriculum, as well as proprietary social media technology and automation tools, to give our Fellows the skills and resources they need to win elections.”  Let’s break down the Muslim wins from federal to the local level, and then we’ll sort them by states: Federal Rashida Tlaib (D)    MI 13th Congressional District    WON Keith Ellison (D)    MN Attorney General    WON Ilhan Omar (D)    MN 5th Congressional District    WON Andre Carson (D)    IN 7th Congressional District    WON State Sheikh Rahman (D)    GA State Senate District 5    WON Safiya Wazir (D)    NH State House Merrimack 17 District    WON Robert Jackson (D)    NY State Senate District 31    WON Nasif Majeed (D)    NC State House District 99    WON Mujtaba Mohammed (D)    NC State Senate District 38    WON Mohamud Noor (D)    MN State House District 60B    WON Jason Dawkins (D)    PA State House District 179    WON Hodan Hassan (D)    MN State House District 62A    WON Charles Fall (D)    NY State House District 61    WON Ako Abdul-Samad (D)    IA State House District 35    WON Aboul Khan (R)    NH State House Rockingham 20 District    WON Abdullah Hammoud (D)    MI State House District 15    WON Abbas Akhil (D)    NM State House District 20    WON County Sam Baydoun (D)    MI Wayne County Commission District 13    WON Sadia Gul Covert (D)    IL Dupage County Board District 5    WON Sabina Taj    MD Howard County Board of Education    WON Mohammad Ramadan    NJ Passaic County Board of Education    WON Cheryl Sudduth    CA West County Wastewater District Director    WON Babur Lateef    VA Prince William County School Board    WON Assad Akhter (D)    NJ Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders    WON Abdul “Al” Haidous (D)    MI Wayne County Commission District 11    WON Municipal Salman Bhojani    TX Euless City Council Place 6    WON* Dawn Haynes    NJ Newark Public Schools School Board    WON* Yasir Khogali    MI City of Plymouth District Library Board    WON Mohamed Khairullah    NJ Prospect Park Mayor    WON Mohamed Al-Hamdani    OH Dayton Public Schools Board of Education    WON Mo Seifeldein    VA Alexandria City Council    WON Maimona Afzal Berta    CA Franklin-McKinley School Board    WON Jihan Aiyash    MI Hamtramck Public School Board    WON Javed Ellahie    CA Monte Sereno City Council    WON Hazim Yassin    NJ Red Bank City Council    WON Haseeb Javed    VA Manassas Park City Council    WON Farrah Khan    CA Irvine City Council    WON Ali Taj    CA Artesia City Council    WON Alaa Matari    NJ Prospect Park Borough Council    WON Alaa “Al” Abdel-Aziz    NJ Paterson City Council Ward 6    WON Aisha Wahab    CA Hayward City Council    WON Ahmad Zahra    CA Fullerton City Council District 5    WON Salim Patel    NJ Passaic City Council    WIN Sabina Zafar    CA San Ramon City Council    WIN Judiciary Shahabuddeen Ally    NYC Civil Court, NY County    WON Sam Salamey    MI District Courts, District 19    WON Rabeea Collier    TX District Courts, 113th District    WON Halim Dhanidina    CA Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three    WON George Abdallah Jr.    CA Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Office 12    WON Adel A. Harb    MI Wayne County Circuit Court    WON In breaking these down by state, Deplorable Kel formulated a list. California  Cheryl Sudduth – West County Wastewater District Director George Abdallah Jr. – Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Office 12 Halim Dhanidina – Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three Maimona Afzal Berta – Franklin-McKinley Board of Education Javed Ellahie – Monte Sereno City Council Al Jabbar – Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees Ahmad Zahra – Fullerton City Council District 5 Aisha Wahab – Hayward City Council Ali Taj – Artesia City Council Farrah Khan – Irvine City Council Sabina Zafar – San Ramon City Council Florida  Amira Dajani Fox (R) – State Attorney Georgia Sheikh Rahman (D) – State Senate District 5 Illinois  Sadia Gul Covert (D) – Dupage County Board District 5 Indiana Andre Carson (D) – 7th Congressional District Iowa Ako Abdul-Samad (D) – State House District 35 Maryland  Sabina Taj – Howard County Board of Education Michigan Rashida Tlaib (D) – 13th Congressional District Abdullah Hammoud (D) – State House District 15 Abdul “Al” Haidous (D) – Wayne County Commission District 11 Sam Baydoun (D) – Wayne County Commission District 13 Adel A. Harb – Wayne County Circuit Court Sam Salamey – District Courts, District 19 Minnesota Ilhan Omar (D) – 5th Congressional District Keith Ellison (D) – Attorney General Hodan Hassan (D) – State House District 62A Mohamud Noor (D) – State House District 60B Siad Ali (D) – District 3 member of the Minneapolis Board of Education New Hampshire  Aboul Khan (R) – State House Rockingham 20 District Safiya Wazir (D) – State House Merrimack 17 District New Jersey  Assad Akhter (D) – Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders Alaa “Al” Abdel-Aziz – Paterson City Council Ward 6 Mohammad Ramadan – Passaic County Board of Education Alaa Matari – Prospect Park Borough Council Dawn Haynes – Newark Public Schools School Board Hazim Yassin – Red Bank City Council Mohamed Khairullah – Prospect Park Mayor Salim Patel – Passaic City Council New Mexico  Abbas Akhil (D) – State House District 20 New York Charles Fall (D) – State House District 61 Robert Jackson (D) – State Senate District 3 Shahabuddeen Ally – NYC Civil Court, NY County North Carolina  Mujtaba Mohammed (D) – State Senate District 38 Nasif Majeed (D) – State House District 99 Ohio Mohamed Al-Hamdani – Dayton Public Schools Board of Education Pennsylvania Jason Dawkins (D) – State House District 179 Texas Rabeea Collier – District Courts, 113th District Salman Bhojani – Euless City Council Place 6 Virginia  Babur Lateef – Prince William County School Board Haseeb Javed – Manassas Park City Council Mo Seifeldein – Alexandria City Council Those judiciary wins are extremely significant considering how judges don’t seem to be concerned about the Constitution anymore and look to foreign law and “precedent” in many of their rulings. However, numbers from a report by Hamas-CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) in coordination with JETPAC indicates that a high percentage of Muslims voted in 2018. The report claims: 95% of Muslim voters participated in this year’s midterm election.• 78% of Muslim voters primarily voted for the Democratic Party candidates and 17% for Republican Party candidates. • 46% of Muslim voters consider themselves liberal on social issues, while 35% consider themselves conservative. • 43% of Muslim voters consider themselves fiscally conservative, while 40% consider themselves liberal. • 26% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic candidates perceived themselves as being conservative on social issues. Moreover, 36% perceived themselves as being fiscally conservative. • 68% of Muslim voters thought Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. increased while 17% thought it decreased in the past year. • 100% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.  (Is it any wonder that, with one exception (state level), they all ran on the Democatic ticket -federal and state levels – in Democrat controlled jurisdictions where they couldn’ t lose!) • 53% of Conversely, only 33% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Republican Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.Muslim voters became more interested in politics since the 2016 presidential election, while 34% maintained the same level of interest in politics and 13% became less interested in politics.• 55% of Muslim voters have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since the 2016 presidential election, while 45% have not.• Out of those Muslim voters who have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since 2016 presidential election: • 20% have primarily donated money to a political or social campaign. • 25% have primarily donated their time by volunteering with a local charity or civic-minded or religious organization. • 18% have primarily donated their expertise by using their skills and/or network to advance social/political engagement. • 37% have primarily been involved in another way.If you don’t think they have an agenda to conform America to Islam, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

WATCH: Ted Cruz Nails It About Why Pelosi Delayed Trump’s State Of The Union Address

By HANK BERRIEN January 17, 2019 

On Wednesday, asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stance to postpone President Trump’s State of the Union Address and why she would take that position, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave a biting answer that was dead right: Pelosi doesn’t want Trump to directly address the American people because then they will get a different message than the mainstream media will give them.

Pelosi wrote to President Trump on Wednesday, “Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29.” She later told CNN, “This is a housekeeping matter in the Congress of the United States, so we can honor the responsibility of the invitation we extended to the President. He can make it from the Oval Office if he wants.”

The interviewer started with Cruz by commenting, “So we’re seeing some efforts from House Democratic leadership to either postpone or put off the State of the Union address because of the shutdown.” He asked Cruz, “Does it really make any sense whatsoever to try to do that, and do people honestly believe that they are going to silence President Trump or end the partial shutdown by talking away the House chambers cameras from him?”

Cruz responded:

Listen, if you’re Nancy Pelosi it makes a lot of sense. Nancy Pelosi is terrified, number one, of her extreme left-wing base; she is captive of that; and number two, the position of Congressional Democrats in this shutdown is objectively unreasonable. In 2013, Chuck Schumer and every Senate Democrat voted in favor of 350 miles of border wall. They have right now shut the government down to stop 234 miles of border wall. I don’t know how you explain that you voted in favor of 350 miles but you shut the government down to stop 234 miles. That is incoherent.

The honest answer: It’s not a substantive disagreement; it’s that they’re terrified of their extreme left wing, who hates Trump. And that’s why we’re having a shutdown. So why does Nancy Pelosi not want the State of the Union? Because the State of the Union is an enormous platform for the president to speak directly to the American people, and she doesn’t want people focusing on the substance of this issue. She wants their information to come from the mainstream media rather than the president.

Listen, it’s the same reason, You remember, back right before the shutdown, when the president met with Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office and it was a remarkable meeting. I thought the funniest and most revealing moment was when Pelosi said multiple times, “Please, can we turn the cameras off? Can we get the reports out of here” She didn’t want people to see then that their position was objectively unreasonable. The president has said he’s willing to compromise; he’s willing to negotiate but we need to secure the border. The president’s right on that. Their position is not defensible so of course she’s trying to hide from the cameras and I don’t think we should let her.

Watch below:

Sen @tedcruz: Pelosi’s #Sotu delay is because she’s terrified of Trump speaking directly to the American people pic.twitter.com/0OknSx2Tys #maga— Matt Batzel (@MattBatzel) January 17, 2019