Category Archives: Republican Party

Watchdog group sues State of Maryland for non-citizens voter fraud

Have you wondered why, with all the rampant vote fraud in the 2012 election (as well as the fraud already evident in the 2014 mid-term election), the Republican Party never did anything about it? (See “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election”)

The reason goes back to a legal agreement called the Consent Decree that the Republican National Committee (RNC) made with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1982. (See Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud)

The GOP’s hands are tied, but that doesn’t mean We the People must just watch with frustration and do nothing.

Now, an election integrity watchdog group, Virginia Voters Alliance, is doing something about election fraud committed by non-U.S. citizens in the state of Maryland.

Bryan Preston reports for PJMedia, Oct. 29, 2014:

An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

Pat McDonough“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.

In a statement, Del. McDonough says:

There are frequent allegations in America and Maryland about the existence of voter fraud. In the case I am presenting today, there is documentation and a track record. The numbers and facts from the records in Frederick County are the tip of the iceberg. When these numbers are multiplied by including the other subdivisions in Maryland, the potential number is alarming and could change the outcome of a close statewide election.

Even more dangerous is the probability of many local elections that are decided by a few votes could be affected. All 188 members of the Maryland General Assembly are standing for re-election as well as many local office holders.

The important election that we have coming up demands that citizens’ votes are not diluted or cancelled by non-citizens who are not legally permitted to vote. The sanctity of the ballot box, because of the flawed system we are pointing out, has already been violated in previous elections.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to mandate those responsible for the administration of the election process will remove the non-citizens from the final voting count.

The purpose of the investigation by the special prosecutor is to penetrate more deeply statewide and determine why this fraud or any other related violation was allowed to occur.

The purpose of the legislation is to plug the massive loophole in current law which permitted these fraudulent practices to take place.

Larry Hogan

Larry Hogan

Maryland is a Democratic stronghold especially around its larger cities, but the governor’s race there is tightening as Republican Larry Hogan gains ground. Illegal votes could tip the balance if the legal vote is close enough on election day. “What if Hogan loses by 500 votes or 1000 votes?” McDonough asked.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Del. McDonough noted that the fraud uncovered by VVA occurred on O’Malley’s watch.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and the POS

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and the POS

See also:

~Eowyn

Karma is a bitch: MSM now say Obama is a danger to press freedom

The liberal main stream media (MSM) connived to elevate Obama to the presidency in 2008 and to reelect him in 2012. Remember Journolist? (See “Media Conspired to Protect Obama“)

The MSM refused to investigate Obama’s shadowy background and history of associating with known communists, including his childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card-carrying member of the American Communist Party.

Having abdicated their responsibility to investigate this man who has more names and Social Security numbers than a dog has fleas, the MSM then deploy the derisive and dismissive label of “birthers” on Americans who question Obama’s constitutional birth eligibility to be president and why he continues to conceal his school, medical and other records.

Here’s just one glaring example of media bias that you’ve probably forgotten:

In 2013, the media made a BIG thing of Republican Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) taking a sip of water during his delivery of the official GOP response to Obama’s State of the Union address. As Reuters put it: “Across the Web, from Deadspin.com to The New Yorker, and on every cable news channel, the Florida senator’s sip from a small bottle of water as he delivered the official Republican response to U.S. President Barack Obama’s on Tuesday was the moment of the evening.”

And yet the media never even so much as whispered that Obama, the President of the most powerful country in the world, was so uncouth as to PICK HIS NOSE in public on live TV.

media-bias2

Now, 6 years into his presidency, more and more of the MSM are complaining about Obama’s press restrictions and lack of transparency. But not one complainer has expressed remorse for colluding to get this toxic man elected twice as president.

Here are some of those in the MSM who are bitching:

1. On May 14, 2013, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote, “it’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

2. In June of 2013, as news came of the Obama Justice Department’s surveillance of reporters, New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson said she was “concerned that the process of news gathering is being criminalized.” In January 2014, in an interview with Al Jazeera America, Abramson called the Obama administration “the most secretive” she has ever had to contend with.

3. In October 2013, David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, said, “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

4. Writing in October 2013, Leonard Downie Jr. said that Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor of The Associated Press, had told him some months ago that “The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention. There’s a mind-set and approach that holds journalists at a greater distance.”

5. Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief who is now director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, said the Obama administration imposes limitations on “everyday access necessary for the administration to explain itself and be held accountable.”

6. Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor said “covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of substance to report on in what should be a much more open system.”

7. CBS veteran television news anchor and chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said “This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.

8. In November 2013, a large group of news organizations sent a letter to the White House protesting limited access for their photographers at newsworthy events involving the president: “The restrictions imposed by the White House on photographers covering these events, followed by the routine release by the White House of photographs made by government employees of these same events, is an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities. You are, in effect, replacing independent photojournalism with visual press releases.”

9. On March 10, 2014, after 21 years with the CBS network as its Washington bureau correspondent and occasional Evening News substitute anchor, Sharyl Attkisson resigned from CBS News, reportedly due to frustration over the network’s liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting.

10 . On March 21, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times’ foreign policy reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation,” and warned that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.” Risen also said “I think Obama hates the press.”

11. On Oct. 3, 2014, at a recent joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers, the Associated Press’ Washington Bureau chief Sally Buzbee detailed 8 ways the Obama administration is restricting access to information.

12. On Oct. 25, 2014, speaking at a White House Correspondents’ Association seminar, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page called the Obama White House not only “more restrictive” but also “more dangerous” to the press than any other in history.

Karma is a bitch!

See also:

~Eowyn

Powerful video of Black activists against Democrats

black activists2

The video below is a powerful heart-rending crie de coeur by four black activists — Mark Carter, Paul McKinley, Harold “Noonie” Ward, and Joseph Watkins. Speaking to fellow blacks, the four men tell the truth, that –

  • Democrats, not Republicans, have hurt blacks.
  • Blacks should stop voting Democrat — including for Obama — because Democrats have done nothing for blacks. Voting Democrat has meant blacks getting poorer and poorer.
  • Blacks commit crimes against fellow blacks, not just in the streets, but in city halls (like Detroit) and state capitols.
  • So-called Black “leaders” abuse, oppress, exploit and mis-govern fellow blacks.
  • Democrats’ talk about raising the minimum wage is ludicrous because blacks’ problem is not about minimum wage. Blacks don’t have jobs.
  • Liberals “force” blacks into a life of welfare. Blacks don’t want welfare. What blacks want are opportunities to go to work and to own businesses.
  • “They only come around when it’s time for elections.”
  • The hundreds of billions of federal dollars to “improve” black communities actually go to line the pockets of Democratic political groups, many of them headed by blacks.

To the above list, should be added this:

  • Obama’s open-border illegal immigration policy hurts black Americans.

~Eowyn

2014 Election fraud: campaign worker stuffs 100s of absentee ballots into Arizona ballot box

The video above is surveillance camera footage of a man stuffing hundreds of absentee ballots into the ballot machine at an Arizona (early) voting station.

At the 0:30 mark, he begins inserting the envelopes containing the absentee ballots. More than 7 minutes later, he finally finishes and leaves — that’s how long it took for him to feed those absentee ballots into the machine.

AZ ballot box stuffer

Jon Street reports for The Blaze that on August 25, 2014, during Arizona’s primary election, an Arizona county party official said he saw the man stuffing “hundreds” of ballots into the ballot box.

A. J. LaFaro, chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party, said, “A person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA) T-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of early ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.”

LaFaro provided the Arizona Daily Independent with the following account of what happened:

CBA worker: “What’s your problem?”

LaFaro: “I don’t have a problem.”

CBA worker: “Stop watching me. You’re annoying me.”

LaFaro: “One of your ballots isn’t sealed.”

CBA worker: “It’s none of your business. What’s your name?”

LaFaro: “I’m the chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party. What’s yours?”

CBA worker:“Go f*** yourself. I don’t have to tell you who I am.”

LaFaro said he later submitted a public information request and obtained the above surveillance video from 12:30-1:30 pm on Aug. 25.

LaFaro said it all happened as he was working with the elections staff during early ballots processing. The team in charge of processing the ballots got “way ahead” so the information systems coordinator convened an extended lunch period from 11:30- 1:00 p.m.

It was between 12:54 and 1:04 that LaFaro said he was seated at one of the cubicles, heard a loud thud and turned around to see the man you see in the video stuffing “hundreds” of ballots. LaFaro described the man as a “vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug” with “no respect for our laws.” LaFaro would have followed the man to his car to get his tag number but did not because he “feared for [his] life.” LaFaro lamented that “America used to be a nation of laws where one person had one vote. I’m sad to say not anymore.”

On its website, Citizens for a Better Arizona says it is an “outgrowth of the grassroots movement that led to the historic recall of former [Republican] President of the [Arizona State] Senate Russell Pearce.” In 2012, CBA led the failed recall attempt on AZ governor Jan Brewer.

CBA describes itself as a non-profit “501 C 4 Social Welfare Organization,” “a predominantly volunteer driven organization of Republicans, Democrats and Independents committed to improving the quality of life of all Arizonans – better schools, better health care, better jobs, better government and a better, more civil tone of respect and decency when it comes to solving Arizona’s problems.”

According to the Center for Responsive Secrets’ website, OpenSecrets.org, CBA had overspent in 2004 and 2006 by tens of thousands of dollars. That leads me to wonder why the organization is still functioning. There is no information on OpenSecrets.org on CBA’s membership or donors.

Citizens for a Better Arizona

Yvonne Reed

Yvonne Reed

When asked about the CBA workers ballot-stuffing, Yvonne Reed, spokeswoman for the Maricopa County Elections Department, said the event occurred at an “operations center,”  and “there’s no investigation. There’s nothing wrong with that. People can bring in someone else’s ballot if those people are willing to trust that individual. There’s no law against bringing in ballots and placing them in the receptacle for early ballots.

But a reader of The Blaze, Walter P, observed that “Here in SC, if someone other than the voter delivers the absentee ballot he ballot envelope must be filled out by the voter naming the person turning in the envelope & that person must show ID to be allowed to turn in the envelope.”

Another reader, PJNevada, commented that in his state, “an absentee ballot has to be returned by the voter directly to the registrar of voters, either in person or by mail; not just stuffed en masse into a ballot box at a random polling place.”

In the case of this ballot-stuffing incident in Arizona, even if the Maricopa County Elections Department insists that “there’s no law” against it, a CBA worker stuffing HUNDREDS of absentee ballots has the appearance, if not the actuality, of impropriety, made even more suspicious by the man’s rude “Go fuck yourself” retort to Mr. LaFaro.

See also:

Update (Oct. 29, 2014):

My sister-in-law, who lives in California, sent me this email:

I’ve been a clerk at polling stations for many years.  Absentee ballots or Vote By Mail ballots are returned in a signed and sealed envelopes by the voters themselves. If another person dropped it off, we have to check the envelope to make sure that it has been signed by the voter and the designated person who dropped it off. Then we put it into the ballot box in their presence.  The burden is on those people who verify these envelopes as legal before the ballots are counted.

~Eowyn

Non-citizen voters gave Obama the edge in 2008 and 2012 — and will in 2014 if we don’t do something about it

I read this article 2 days ago, but found it so depressing that I can bring myself to post it only today.

Ask yourself this question:

When you registered to vote, did anyone ask you to produce proof of your U.S. citizenship?

No? Instead, at best you were asked to produce a photo I.D., like a driver’s license to prove who you say you are. However, a driver’s license doesn’t and can’t prove you are a U.S. citizen.

It turns out ILLEGAL aliens in the United States have been voting in our elections, even though they are not eligible and are not supposed to vote. And they are getting away with this travesty precisely because voter registration doesn’t require proof of U.S. citizenship. That is why Democrats are so intent on allowing illegal aliens obtain a driver’s license.

In an article for The Washington Post on October 24, 2014, “Could Non-Citizens Decide the November Election?,” political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest report on their stunning research finding that non-U.S. citizens had voted in both the 2008 and 2010 elections, and they did so in sufficient numbers that they likely changed the outcome, that is, the election and reelection of Barack Obama to the presidency, as well as the election of a Democratic majority to the U.S. Senate.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.

Their research findings will be published in a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies.

This was Richman and Earnest’s research methodology. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), the two political scientists:

  • Assembled a sample of 32,800 for the 2008 election, 339 of whom were non-citizens.
  • Assembled a sample of 55,400 for the 2010 election, 489 of whom were non-citizens.
  • Matched respondents to voter files so as to verify whether they’d actually voted.

Here are the political scientists’ research findings:

  • Although most non-U.S. citizens do not register to vote, let alone vote, however –
  • More than 14% of non-U.S. citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they had registered to vote.
  • 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008.
  • 2.2% of non-citizens voted in 2010.
  • Richman and Earnest concluded that enough non-citizens had voted in 2008 and 2012 so that their votes changed the outcome of those elections.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

In the words of Richman and Earnest:

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

Richman and Earnest also found that photo I.D., a policy advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud, “appears strikingly ineffective.” As many as three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

The political scientists propose that public information may be a better method to reduce voting by non-citizens because the more educated non-citizens were less likely to violate the law by voting. As an example, in 2008, no non-citizens with a college degree or higher voted, whereas non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to have voted. This suggests that non-citizen voting may be due to a lack of awareness about the illegality of their voting.

Based on the 2008 and 2012 precedents, Richman and Earnest justly ask if control of the Senate in 2014 will be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens.

If early voting in North Carolina is any indication, the answer is “Yes.”

Kenric Ward reports for Watchdog that early voting began last Thursday, Oct. 24, in North Carolina, and already the state’s election board had found 154 ineligible non-citizen voters on its poll lists.

Those 154 illegal immigrants are on NC’s voter rolls, courtesy of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA designees can be up to 31 years old. When  illegal immigrants are certified under DACA, deportation proceedings are frozen. That opens a window for those illegals to obtain driver’s licenses in North Carolina, said James Johnson, president of North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement.

And with driver’s license in hand, unscrupulous and dishonest illegal aliens can and do register to vote.

NC’s State Board of Elections are examining more than 9,000 additional voters’ names for their questionable legal status. But they do not expect to finish checking before early voting had begun. Special counsel Brian LiVecchi told Watchdog.org that “We don’t know what we don’t know.”

“We want to know how such a large number of non-U.S. citizens were ever registered to vote in the first place,” said Jay DeLancy, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina. “There is clearly a system failure here and we need the Board of Elections and the DMV to help the Legislature and the public understand where the problem lies.”

NC State Rep. Christopher Mills (R-Hampstead) wrote a letter to the Board of Elections citing “an extremely large number of non-citizens” on North Carolina’s voter rolls. Mills asked that election officials explain the “likely procedure in which these non-citizens were allowed to register to vote … and the board’s actions for immediate removal.”

So what do we do about this outrageous travesty?

I suggest the following:

  1. Contact your Congress critters and DEMAND that they look into this. Click here.
  2. Contact your state’s attorney general, who is supposed to oversee elections, and DEMAND that they inspect the voters’ registrations to spot and eliminate non-U.S. citizens. Click here to find out the name, address, and phone no. of your attorney general.
  3. Publicize by disseminating this post to your family, friends, and contacts via e-mail and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)!!!

See also:

~Eowyn

Oklahoma City in America’s spiritual war: 10 Commandments monument smashed into pieces

eye-of-the-storm

There is a ferocious spiritual war in America, and Oklahoma City seems to be at the center, targeted by malevolent people and forces.

In 2009 when Republicans were in control, the state legislature gave the green light for a Ten Commandments statue, paid for with private funds, to be placed outside the state capitol building in Oklahoma City.

Three years later, in November 2012, a 6-feet tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments was erected.

10 commandments monument outside Oklahoma state Capitol

Almost immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) leveled a lawsuit to remove the monument, claiming that it violated the state constitution’s ban against using public property to support church or religion.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was followed by the New York-based Satanic Temple declaring their intention to build a 7 ft. tall statue of their master next to the Ten Commandments — all in the name of “religious parity.”

Then, on September 21, 2014, a local satanist group conducted a blasphemous “Black Mass” right smack in the Oklahoma City Civic Center.

Alton Nolen

Alton Nolen

Three days after the satanic Black Mass, on September 24, 2014, a recent convert to Islam, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, walked into a Vaughan Foods administrative office in Moore, a suburb of Oklahoma City, and attacked two female employees with a knife. Nolen beheaded Colleen Hufford, 54, and repeatedly stabbed Traci Johnson, 43, who survived the attack. (See “Of course he did: Obama Official Praises Mosque Of Oklahoma Beheader Alton Nolen”)

Mark Vaughan, the company’s chief operating officer, who is also a reserve sheriff’s deputy, shot Nolen, stopping the attack. Nolen was charged with first-degree murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and may also face federal charges as well.

Writing for CNN, Mel Robbins is incredulous that the FBI refuses to call Nolen’s attack and beheading a terrorist attack:

It was a terrorist attack, and everyone knows it. Why won’t the government say so? The Washington Post reports that the FBI found ‘no indication that Alton Alexander Nolen was copying the beheadings of journalists in Syria by the Islamic State … adding that they are treating this as an incident of workplace violence.’

Workplace violence? You can’t be serious! Oh wait — the FBI must mean “workplace violence” as in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the terrorist convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and left many more wounded.

On September 19, 2014, the ACLU’s lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments monument was thrown out by an Oklahoma County judge.

So satanists took matters into their own talons.

Zak Patterson reports for Oklahoma City’s KOCO that at approximately 9 p.m. on Oct. 23, 2014, a man drove his car into the Ten Commandments monument and smashed it into pieces.

The suspect told the Secret Service, upon his arrest, that Satan had told him to do it. He admitted that he had urinated on the monument before running it over.

The suspect reportedly also made vague threats at the Oklahoma City Federal Building and said he would kill President Obama and spit on a photo of Obama. The man was taken into custody. The vehicle involved was abandoned and has since been impounded.

The cleanup is underway and parts of the Ten Commandments monument will be restored.

The ACLU of Oklahoma made this statement following the incident:

“The ACLU of Oklahoma and our clients are outraged at this apparent act of vandalism. While we have and continue to seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Capitol grounds through the judicial process, the Ten Commandments constitute a strong foundation in our clients’ deeply held religious beliefs. To see the Ten Commandments desecrated by vandals is highly offensive to them as people of faith. Our Oklahoma and Federal Constitutions seek to create a society in which people of all faiths and those of no faith at all can coexist as equals without fear of repressions from the government or their neighbors. Whether it is politicians using religion as a political tool or vandals desecrating religious symbols, neither are living up to the full promise of our founding documents.”

An official with the US Attorney’s Office said if enough evidence is found against the suspect regarding his alleged threats against the president then a report will be submitted to the US Attorney’s Office.

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call OHP at 405-425-7709.

Michael Reed Jr.

Michael Reed Jr.

The police have since identified the man as Michael Tate Reed Jr., 29. He is from Roland and was taken to Oklahoma County mental facility for an emergency order of detention and a mental evaluation.

Reed’s mother, Crystal Tucker, said her son “would never deface something that meant so much to him. He takes the Ten Commandments very seriously.” Tucker said Reed has been battling breakdowns for two years ever since he was injured at work four years ago. (See “Psychiatric nurse says half of patients have a spiritual affliction”)

Tucker said when her son “has these breakdowns, the one thing that is foremost in his mind, his religion, is the thing he takes it out on.” But Reed does not worship Satan, the mother said. “Anyone who knows Michael, knows he loves his God. Right now, everyone is praying for him.”

Well, mom. I suggest you ask your son who “his God” is.

See also:

~Eowyn

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn