The Latest, Fast-Moving Developments in the 2020 Election Season

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation

KEY TAKEAWAYS

·         All of the groups pushing mail-in voting are also pushing to have more voters disenfranchised in November.

·         The Heritage Election Fraud Database, which contains a sampling of proven fraud cases from around the country, is now up to 1,290 cases.

·         Overall, this is turning out to be a very eventful election year.

I often write about the latest developments in the election area, including court decisions and legislative and regulatory changes. An unprecedented number of lawsuits have been filed by the radical left (at last count over 150 and counting) trying to use the COVID-19 health crisis as an excuse to nullify state requirements like voter ID laws.

They are also trying to force states to make numerous unwise changes, such as taking away the ability of voters to vote in person by forcing them to vote by mail.

Heritage has published a new case study, Four Stolen Elections: The Vulnerabilities of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots, that demonstrates the risks of voting by mail.

And in 2012, The New York Times—yes, The New York Times!—actually published an informative article about the problems with absentee ballots, pointing out that “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised, and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.”

So all of the groups pushing mail-in voting are also pushing to have more voters disenfranchised in November.

Developments are coming so fast it is hard to keep up with them. So here is a quick summary of just some of the most recent election-related news:

New Election Fraud Cases

Those who constantly claim there is no election fraud were no doubt chagrined to learn that a former Democratic congressman, Michael “Ozzie” Myers, was indicted on July 21 by the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, William McSwain.

Myers was charged with ballot stuffing, bribery, and obstruction of justice. It is alleged that he bribed a Philadelphia polling official to stuff ballot boxes with fraudulent votes in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primaries, for Democratic candidates running for local, state, and federal offices, including judicial offices.

What we don’t know yet is whether any of the candidates who hired Myers knew what he was doing or that the consulting fees they were paying Myers were being used to buy fraudulent votes.

In the same vein, the New Jersey attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, has filed voter fraud charges involving absentee ballots against four individuals in Paterson, including a city councilman, over the May 12 municipal election that local authorities had foolishly changed to an all-mail election. The results of the election have been thrown in doubt.

The Heritage Election Fraud Database, which contains a sampling of proven fraud cases from around the country, is now up to 1,290 cases.

Do You Want To Trust Your Ballot to the Mail?

For those of you who think it is a good idea to trust your ballot and your vote to a postal service that regularly delivers your neighbor’s mail to you, you may want to read the report of the U.S. Postal Service’s inspector general on the problems encountered in the April 7 primary in Wisconsin. This included over 3,500 absentee ballots never delivered to voters, as well as hundreds of other ballots mailed back to election officials by voters that were never postmarked by postal authorities, making it impossible for election officials to determine if they had been mailed in time to be counted.

Still not convinced? Then check out the latest report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation that analyzed official reports published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. In the last four federal elections, more than two million absentee ballots were misdelivered; 1.3 million were rejected by election officials; and over 28 million were categorized as “unknown” by state election officials, i.e., they don’t know what happened to the ballots after they handed them over to the U.S. Postal Service to deliver.

Why Can’t We Vote In Person?

If we are all going to our grocery stores and pharmacies, why can’t we vote safely in person? We can, according to the latest guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which were issued on June 22. Local election officials just need to implement the same safety protocols we are seeing in retail establishments, everything from making sure that voters “stay at least 6 feet apart” to disinfecting “surfaces that are frequently touched” in the polling places, such as “registration tables, pens, and clipboards.”

Other jurisdictions have already safely conducted elections with in-person voting during this and prior pandemics without spikes in infections, as explained in another Heritage study, COVID-19 and Ebola: What We Can Learn from Prior Elections.

Apportionment and Future Elections After the Census

President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on July 21 directing the Commerce Department (where the Census Bureau sits) to exclude illegal aliens from the U.S. population being counted as “inhabitants” for apportionment purposes. The number of members of the House of Representatives that states are entitled to is reapportioned after every census based on the population of each state in comparison to the total population of the country.

Including illegal aliens in that count (as well as aliens here temporarily on business, as tourists, or as diplomats) dilutes the votes of American citizens and perversely incentivizes states like California to encourage more illegal immigration in violation of U.S. law in order to gain more congressional representation.

The law here is on the president’s side, including a Supreme Court decision, Franklin v. Massachusetts, as is fundamental fairness and equity.

Court Decisions in Tennessee and Alabama

On the litigation front in Phillip Randolph Institute v. Hargett, Tennessee got some good news for election integrity. On July 21, a federal judge refused to grant an injunction sought by liberal groups that would have prevented election officials from complying with the signature comparison requirement of state law for the upcoming August 6 primary. This law requires election officials to compare the signature of a voter on an absentee ballot with the signature of the voter on file when the voter registered.

This is one of the only security checks on absentee ballots to ensure they have been completed by the actual voter, and yet these groups wanted that protocol thrown out—something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with COVID-19 despite the lawsuit being cloaked in the COVID-19 mantle.

They also wanted to eliminate Tennessee’s ban on vote harvesting and force the state to allow third-party strangers—like campaign staffers, party activists, and political consultants who have a stake in the election outcome—to show up at voters’ homes to collect their ballots. Talk about a way to spread the COVID-19 infection!

Alabama also got a double-dose of good news when a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the state’s voter ID law in Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama on July 21. According to the majority, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Alabama’s law, which applies to both in-person and absentee ballots, is discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act or the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The burden on voters is minimal given the wide variety of IDs that satisfy the law, as well as the fact that the state will provide a free ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one.

And on July 2 in Merrill v. People First, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an unjustified decision by a federal district court, saying that Alabama couldn’t enforce its ID or witness/notarization requirements for absentee ballots, despite the fact that a rule had been issued allowing notarization through videoconferencing—the same technology all of us are using every day.

Is Twitter Violating Campaign Finance Laws?

Finally, we have an example of how one of the big social media platforms may be trying to influence elections in a way that may violate federal campaign finance law. A very interesting complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission, where I used to be a commissioner, as well as with the U.S. Department of Justice, which is responsible for prosecuting criminal violations of the law.

Laura Loomer is running for Congress in Florida against incumbent Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Fla. Loomer was banned from Twitter for supposedly violating Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy” for saying that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is “pro-Sharia” and “anti-Jewish.” Yet Frankel has not been banned from Twitter and thus is able to use it for campaigning.

Loomer claims that Twitter is making a prohibited corporate contribution to Frankel by allowing one candidate to use its site but not the other candidate in the same race. She says that “just as a radio or television station may not sell time only to a candidate’s opponent, Twitter may not do so either without providing equal access to all candidates running for the same office.”

Loomer complains that “Democratic officials have repeatedly made comments substantially similar to Loomer’s about Republican politicians without facing repercussions from Twitter.”  As examples, she points to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., accusing Trump of “engaging in ‘antisemitism’ towards” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., calling Trump a “lying, crooked, tax evader, porn-star fornicator.” Apparently, those hateful, vicious comments by liberals don’t violate Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy.”

Overall, this is turning out to be a very eventful election year. Between the fights in the media and in the social platform world and between all of the candidates, along with the litigation and regulatory battles going on in almost every state over how to conduct the election in the face of COVID-19, this may end up being one of the most chaotic presidential election years we have had in decades.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Cynicism Growing Over Covid Edicts

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

Ideally, the public should follow the advice of public health experts in times of a pandemic. They should also listen to news reports, and abide by what their elected officials have to say. Court decisions also merit respect. But when doctors, journalists, politicians and judges act inconsistently, evincing a political bias, cynicism is not only predictable, it is warranted.

On July 29, President Trump and his supporters gathered in Midland, Texas for an event. Most wore masks and practiced social distancing, but some did not. Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, was upset with the few who ignored the advice of experts. "Why are they in that large group? They shouldn't be gathering in groups."

Schaffner should have been asked why some are not cooperating. Instead, he called them names, saying they were "dumb."

A more rational response to what is going on was given two months ago by William A. Jacobson, a Cornell University professor. "The riots have ripped the mask off the mainstream media politicized coronavirus hysteria. When it was politically convenient, the media shamed and attacked people who wanted to reopen their stores or even gather at the beach. Now that rioters and looters are gathering in large numbers, the media no longer cares about social distancing, because the media sympathizes with them."

Politicians also sympathize with the protesters. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was unhappy with store owners for protesting his shutdown decree, however he said it was entirely legitimate to protest racism. He said it was "one thing to protest what day nail salons are opening, and it's another to come out in peaceful protest." In other words, if he likes the cause of the protest, people can take to the streets without following social distancing guidelines.

Murphy was outdone by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. He was asked why he was cracking down on religious gatherings while allowing anti-racism protesters the right to disregard social distancing norms. "We're in the middle of a national crisis, a deep-seated national crisis. There is no comparison." Again, it is not mass gatherings that matter, it is what the masses are gathering for that matters.

When asked if the spike in coronavirus cases following the protests was related to those who took to the streets, the mayor said, "I would be surprised if that's what's causing it." He cited no evidence for his conviction. In any event, he instructed the contact-tracing task force not to ask those who tested positive for the virus if they recently attended a Black Lives Matter protest. But it was okay to ask if someone recently attended a church service.

Judges are looking just as bad. The U.S. Supreme Court recently said it was okay for Nevada to allow crowds to gather in the casinos but not the churches. Justice Neil Gorsuch called out the duplicity saying, "there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel."

Many in the media want the protests to continue, but not church gatherings. No one likes this outcome better than New York Times legal correspondent Linda Greenhouse. She loved the Supreme Court 5-4 decision, going into a fury over the dissenters. She accused them of engaging in a "religious crusade," decrying what she said was "the ferocity of the main dissenting opinion." After reading her boilerplate commentary, it seems plain that she would not raise an eyebrow if the churches were ordered to shut down indefinitely.

Portland has been ravaged by left-wing activists for over two months. Obviously, social distancing does not apply to them. Oregonlive likes it that way. It ran a lengthy piece expressing great concern for outdoor gatherings in state parks, without ever mentioning the threat to public health caused by the anarchists. 

Bars are being busted and shuttered all over the nation, and this is exactly what Dr. Anthony Fauci wants. At the end of June he said, "Congregation at a bar, inside, is bad news. We really got to stop that right now." 

What if someone is seeking anonymous sex online? Would that be okay? Fauci said, "If you're willing to take the risk—and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks—you could figure out if you want to meet somebody." He concluded, "If you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that's your choice regarding risk." He did not explain how strangers can have sex while social distancing. 

In other words, Fauci is telling those looking for online sex that the risk is on you, but when it comes to those who want to take the risk of going to their neighborhood bar for a beer, they need to be stopped. 

We have come to this stage of cynicism precisely because of the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. The politicians, judges, journalists, and doctors who send mixed messages are to blame. Only they can rectify the damage they have done to their reputations, never mind the damage they have done to public health.

Church Militant -- Heaven's election

More FOT -- this Thursday @ 10 a.m. CDT

Ooooops … ran out of disk at the end, but only a sentence was cut-off.

Thursday @ 10 a.m. (CDT) on Faith On Trial, Robert Tyler, chief counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom on on-line minister who was thrown off Vimeo for preaching hate … Robert Muse, chief counsel for American Freedom Law Center on the Michigan governor banning weddings as only “social gatherings.”

Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM; streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com, and – the part cut-off – also available on our free downloadable app.

I Cancel You!

By Deacon Mike Manno

The Wanderer

“Listen up, peon, by now you must understand that my intelligence, education, and exalted place in society are such that I am to be believed and I will not tolerate any defiance. You conform or you will be canceled.”

So issue the threats from The Woke among us. You see, the modern leftists are so secure in their feeble knowledge of history, science, the arts, politics, and nearly everything else, that to express any type of disagreement should render that societal heretic invisible. In other words, he should be canceled. And it doesn’t matter if the offense is being committed by a thing and not a person — just remove the thing, it is no longer anything nor does it hold any value.

And, of course, if it is represented by a statute or a piece of art, well, just destroy it. After all, Confederate generals no longer exist, they’ve been canceled, and so will anyone from the past who has ever uttered a word, made a statement, or acted in a manner disagreeable to the Woke Intelligentsia. And whatever was said or done in the past must now meet with the new left’s political approval or history itself will be canceled, as the 1619 project, authored by The New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones, wants to do. After all, with Oprah’s blessing that program will soon be coming to a school near you.

You disagree with me? I cancel you! You are no longer relevant. It is as if you don’t exist, because my imperfect knowledge is so superior to yours you are no longer entitled to express a differing opinion. Got that?

If you don’t, they will come after your job. Just ask Gary Garrels, senior curator for paintings and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art — or we should say the former curator.

It seems that Mr. Garrels committed an unpardonable sin by expressing his opinion that the museum should not exclude works from white, male artists. It seems that he made the offensive comment during a staff meeting and was ratted out by one of the employees there. That produced an online petition that demanded his removal.

“Gary‘s removal from [the museum] is non-negotiable,” the petition read. “Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum.” See that? The man was a toxic white supremacist! Therefore he must be canceled. Mr. Garrels duly fell on his sword and, after genuflecting to the gods of political correctness, turned in his resignation.

Of course this isn’t new. University professors who do not adhere to the Woke agenda have been getting the boot for years. Even in the ranks of tenured professors wokeness will sometimes prevail, but without tenure they are goners, canceled in the name of leftist ideology. We can’t have dissenting ideas on this campus, no sir. We are Woke, we are the new intelligentsia and our view of history, science, and all else must be held as true, otherwise, you guessed it, you’re canceled.

Remember Mozilla co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich? His sin was to sign a petition in favor of traditional marriage and he donated $1,000 to that cause. He had been head of the firm for less than two weeks. Canceled and forced to resign.

During that campaign, to get Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, the homosexual group Californians Against Hate distributed the names and addresses of citizen-signers of the petition to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. Many faced repercussions against their businesses and their employers and were either fired or forced to quit or close their businesses.

“If our opponents want to take away our rights, then we will fight back. We will let the world know who these donors are, and then our millions of friends and allies can decide if they want to support their businesses or not,” said the aforementioned anti-hate group. The message: You disagree, therefore you must be canceled.

At last this cancel culture is meeting more than token opposition. Recently, New York Times’ opinion columnist Bari Weiss, no flame-throwing conservative, resigned. In her letter of resignation to Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. she wrote:

“I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives, and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. . . .

“But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else….Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions….

“My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist. . . . Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. . . . [S]ome coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one. . . .

“Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times.”

Her resignation — self cancellation, if you will — followed by a month the forced resignation of James Bennet, the editorial page editor, after the rebellious reaction of staff to an op-ed he published by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) urging the president to consider using troops to restore order. You see, dissent from liberal orthodoxy is not tolerated. The man had to be canceled!

Only hours after Weiss’ resignation was announced, a colleague, Andrew Sullivan, resigned from New York Magazine. In a tweet after his own resignation, Sullivan said, “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thought crimes, and her editors stood by and watched.”

In the background of all of this was an open letter by J.K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky, and about 150 other activists and writers, which warned that “free exchange of information and ideas the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.” The letter was published on Harper’s Magazine website and will be featured in the magazine’s October issue.

“The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away….As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us,” the letter concluded.

So the question left is: Does this represent the end — or at least the diminishment — of the Woke culture? Or does it represent only the end of the beginning? Time will tell.

If not, cancel it anyway.

Ohio minister challenges law forcing her to officiate, write for same-sex weddings

Lawsuit challenges county law forcing officiant to create vows, pray over same-sex weddings if she celebrates marriage between one man and one woman

CLEVELAND – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a Cleveland minister and wedding business owner filed suit in federal court Wednesday to challenge a Cuyahoga County law that forces her to use her ministry and business to officiate and compose homilies, vows, and prayers for same-sex weddings if she officiates or promotes weddings between one man and one woman.

Cuyahoga County also forbids Kristi Stokes and her business, Covenant Weddings, from publicly explaining on her own website and social media sites the religious reasons why she only celebrates weddings between one man and one woman. The county considers such communications to be unlawful “discrimination” based on sexual orientation. The law threatens fines of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, depending on their frequency, and the threat of investigation and expensive legal fees.

“No one should be forced to officiate ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson. “Because of Cuyahoga County’s law, Kristi faces an impossible choice: disobey the law, defy her own faith, or ditch her business. Many different religions and countless people of good will believe that weddings are sacred ceremonies between one man and one woman. No matter one’s views on marriage, we all lose when bureaucrats can force citizens to participate in religious ceremonies they oppose, speak messages they disagree with, and stay silent about beliefs they hold dear.”

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of filmmakers and artists who brought similar challenges against laws like Cuyahoga County’s. ADF attorneys are asking the court to halt enforcement of the law against Stokes and her business while her lawsuit proceeds.

“Since a young age, I’ve dedicated my life to ministry, and today I love serving my community by officiating and writing for weddings,” said Stokes. “My religious beliefs influence every aspect of my life, and I can’t simply put my religious identity into separate personal and professional boxes. If you’re looking for someone to officiate your wedding, and you’re hoping to incorporate a cannabis theme or write prayers to celebrate an open marriage, I’m not your girl. Northeast Ohio is home to many diverse viewpoints, and I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”

ADF attorneys filed the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in the case, Covenant Weddings LLC v. Cuyahoga County, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint explains how the county’s law violates various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses by infringing her freedom to create expression and participate in ceremonies consistent with her religious beliefs.

The complaint also notes that there are more than 70 wedding officiants in and near Cleveland and more than 150 wedding officiants in Ohio who will officiate same-sex weddings. 

Podcast interview with Deacon Mike Manno

Deacon Mike Manno is Jimmy Olsen’s guest on this week’s One on One podcast. Just click on the link below:

Listen to "One on One - 07222020 Mike Manno" on Spreaker.

Mike can be heard on the Faith On Trial Radio program every Thursday at 10 central on IowaCatholicRadio.com. You can also read Mike’s columns every week in The Wanderer.

Unalienable Rights Panel Draws Familiar Foes

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

On July 16, the U.S. State Department, led by Secretary Mike Pompeo, issued its "Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights." Since that time, it has become increasingly evident that its critics, at home and abroad, are using the same playbook.

In the United States, the Center for American Progress is leading the way. In the United Kingdom, openDemocracy Limited (it publishes openDemocracy.net) is the key source. Both have released statements critical of the Report and both are funded by the Ford Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Institute, two notoriously anti-Catholic and pro-abortion entities.  

The Center for American Progress is a large-scale organization that was founded by John Podesta. He was White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and chairman of Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign; he also worked in the Obama administration. Today this enormously wealthy institution is run by Neera Tanden. She also worked in the Clinton and Obama administrations and was active in Hillary's bid for the White House.

The Center for American Progress employs left-wing experts covering 21 different issues, one of which is Religion and Values. Unlike its support for LGBT rights, it shows very little enthusiasm for promoting religious rights. Indeed, it is more interested in detailing how religious liberty can be a problem.

Thus, it was not surprising to learn that it would release a letter signed by more than "30 faith leaders" warning against Pompeo's "new push to put property rights and religious freedom at the forefront of American diplomacy." What was surprising is that the signatories—mostly pro-abortion and pro-gay rights activists (including those who falsely claim a Catholic status)—would actually go so far as to say that by giving primacy to religious freedom, the Report "will weaken religious freedom itself."

What's that? Only left-wing religious leaders would argue that giving prominence to religious freedom would weaken it. These same people would never say that giving prominence to LGBT rights would weaken those rights.

They are upset with the "hierarchy of rights" outlined in the Report. They argue that when it comes to rights, "none should be subordinate to another." Though they do not mention LGBT rights, it is clear from their political leanings and affiliations that they had these rights in mind when they expressed concern that the Report might "justify marginalizing certain rights."

The analysis provided by openDemocracy, "Justifying American Exceptionalism: The Commission on Unalienable Rights Undermines Modern Human Rights," is more specific.

This so-called "independent global media platform" is comprised of left-wing philanthropists and activists from around the world. It was founded in 2000 to "ensure that marginalized views and voices are heard." For the uninitiated, that does not include the most marginalized views and voices in the Western world today, namely those of a religious or conservative persuasion.

The openDemocracy document, like the letter issued by the Center for American Progress, is not happy with the elevated status given to religious liberty in the Report. It is particularly incensed over the high profile given to the Declaration of Independence. "There is no mention of the French Revolution or the Enlightenment which formed the background for the Declaration of Independence," it says.

Not to be picky, but it is not certain how the French Revolution, which began in 1789, could have "formed the background for the Declaration of Independence," which was written in 1776. But who cares about history? Perhaps Mary Ann Glendon, who heads the Commission, should have mentioned that the reason why we must give priority to unalienable rights is because the French Revolution decimated them.

She could have cited, for instance, the murder of the Catholic clergy, the plunder of Catholic property, and the bloodstained attempts to destroy Catholicism in all of its vestiges. She might have ended by agreeing with historians that the French Revolution was the world's first totalitarian regime. But this is probably not what these sages were thinking.

Unlike the Center for American Progress, openDemocracy cites LGBT rights several times. It is these newly invented rights that really fires the globalists. They want to make sure that when the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty clashes with the homosexual agenda, the former loses every time.

Both the U.S. and the U.K. organizations are miffed that the Report does not mirror the universality of rights noted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Report does not dodge this anticipated complaint, noting that while the Universal Declaration "does not explicitly establish a hierarchy of rights," it is the duty of the U.S. State Department to "determine which rights most accord with national principles, priorities, and interests at any given time."

It might also be said that among the rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration that these organizations want to put on the same plane with religious liberty is the "right to rest and leisure" (Article 24).

More rest and leisure for these geniuses is exactly what the doctor ordered.

This week on Faith On Trial

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is taking aim at Fordham University for placing a student on probation for two images he posted on social media, one of which memorialized the Tiananmen Square Massacre. FIRE’s Lindsie Rank, Program Officer, Individual rights Defense Program, will join us. 

In addition to Lindsie we’ll also have a pre-recorded interview with Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society on Texas pro-aborts trying to chill pro-life speech and what is being done about it. 10 a.m. Thursday on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 or 94.5 FM or IowaCatholicRadio.com.

God Survey Reveals Status Divide

The Pew Research Center's latest survey on religion worldwide reveals some interesting socio-economic patterns.

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

In general, the developing nations are more likely to believe that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values than is true in the developed nations. Within each nation, the same phenomena exists: the wealthy are less likely to agree that God is central to morality than is true of those at the bottom of the class strata.

In the United States, 54% say it is not necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 44% say it is necessary. Education drives the outcome: the most highly educated are the least likely to acknowledge the seminal place of God in shaping moral outcomes. Education, of course, is linked to income. Interestingly, the gap on this scale between those with higher income and those with lower income is greatest in the United States.

Political leanings matter as well. Those of a more conservative bent are the most likely to affirm the role of God in moral decisions; those who lean left are the least likely. This is true in all 15 nations surveyed.

When the question is personalized, i.e., when respondents are asked about the role of religion in their own lives, 72% of Americans say it is important.

It is clear from this survey, as well as many others, that socio-economic status helps to explain religiosity: there is an inverse relationship between the two, meaning that the more educated and affluent a person is, the less likely he is to say religion plays an important role in his life.

From a Catholic perspective, the sin of pride is operative. To be exact, the highly educated believe that they have no need for God; they believe they are morally self-sufficient and prefer to follow their own moral compass. Sociologically, this matters (after all, we all interact with each other). Ergo, we need to explore the content of their moral compass.

In the United States, those who say religion is critical to morality are essentially saying that their vision is shaped by the Judeo-Christian ethos, which is rooted in the Ten Commandments. Those who say God is not important are more likely to have their vision shaped by moral relativism; it defines their moral compass.

Which brings us back to the survey. It is one thing for someone, including a person of faith, to say that it is possible for an individual to be moral without also being religious. Indeed, examples abound. However, it is quite another to say that a society can be moral if most people entertain a secular vision.

This is not to say that the European nations, most of which have adopted a secular vision, are morally corrupt. They are not. But this is no tribute to them. Every western nation is still benefiting from the residue of the Judeo-Christian culture which has long shaped their society. History has shown, however, that in the long run, a culture that embraces moral relativism is inviting nothing but trouble. 

Archbishop Fulton Sheen's 50 year old prophecy for today

NYC pays $100,000 for censoring psychotherapist’s private conversations with patients

Victory for Orthodox Jewish counselor who sued to protect his First Amendment freedoms

NEW YORK – The city of New York agreed to pay $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and nominal damages this week after the city council backtracked and repealed an ordinance that unconstitutionally censored private conversations between counseling professionals and their patients. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist, Dr. Dovid Schwartz, asked a federal district court in June 2019 to halt enforcement of the city’s new ordinance that violated Schwartz’s freedom of speech and infringed on his religious faith and that of his patients.

In the face of the lawsuit, the city backtracked on its previous legislation and, last September, voted to repeal the counseling ban. In light of the repeal and this settlement, Schwartz and his attorneys are dismissing their lawsuit in Schwartz v. City of New York.

“All New Yorkers and all Americans deserve the right to private conversations, free from government control,” said ADF Senior Counsel Roger Brooks. “New York City directly violated our client’s freedom of speech by trying to regulate and censor private sessions between an adult and his therapist. While the city eventually saw the writing on the wall and reversed course, it needlessly cost the taxpayers of New York tens of thousands of dollars for enacting its unconstitutional policy in the first place, because Dr. Schwartz was forced to go to court to protect his rights. Other cities should not repeat the same error. We’re grateful that New York City is no longer threatening to censor Dr. Schwartz’s conversations and impose government-approved orthodoxy on him or his patients.”

In 2018, the city council adopted a law making it illegal for any person to provide services for a fee that “seek to change a person’s sexual orientation or seek to change a person’s gender identity to conform to the sex of such individual that was recorded at birth.” Notably, the law only prohibited counsel in one direction—assisting a patient who desires to reduce same-sex attraction or achieve comfort with their biological sex. The law threatened fines of up to $10,000 for first, second, and subsequent violations. By contrast, counseling that steers a patient towards a gender identity different than his or her physical body was permitted.

Over the course of his over 50 years of general practice, Schwartz has regularly encountered and served patients who want his help overcoming same-sex attraction. Because of their religious beliefs and personal life goals, clients who seek his counsel often desire to experience opposite-sex attraction so they can marry, form a natural family, and live consistently with their Orthodox Jewish faith. A number of patients have pursued and achieved those goals with the aid of his psychotherapeutic services. Schwartz uses no techniques in working with his patients other than listening and talking—yet the 2018 law claimed to forbid even that.

Nelson, Madden, Black LLP attorney Barry Black, one of nearly 3,100 private attorneys allied with ADF, served as co-counsel in the case, Schwartz v. City of New York, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Biden Will Undo Win for Religious Freedom

Fr. Frank Pavone

By Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director of Priests for Life

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court gave President Trump, his administration, and all Americans a significant victory for religious freedom. At issue was an Obama-Biden mandate that I too was involved in fighting all the way to the Supreme Court four years ago.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court said the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions to those who had moral or religious objections to the onerous 2011 "HHS mandate" that required employers to provide coverage for certain contraceptives and abortions in the health insurance plan offered to their employees.

But make no mistake, the victory will be undone if a Democrat wins the presidential election in November.

And in fact, presumptive Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden was quoted the very day the decision was issued, saying he would "restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before" President Trump and the Supreme Court began defending religious groups from being forced to choose between following the law or following their faith.

There are so many things wrong with Biden’s position that it’s hard to know where to start. So let’s go back to the beginning.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act — i.e. Obamacare — in 2010, it said employers have to cover essential healthcare services for their employees, but did not specify what those services might be. The law left that task to the appropriate federal agencies.

A year later, the Department of Health and Human Services came out with the list of specific required services, including all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, some of which cause early abortions.

Houses of worship were exempt, but ministries like Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor — and many others — would not be (despite the fact that they share the same faith and moral convictions as their houses of worship do.)

Of course we could not and would not abide by this mandate.

The very purpose of our organization is to end abortion, not help provide it.

Moreover, the Catholic Church is, and has always been, against the use of artificial contraception.

Priests for Life became the fourth of what turned into hundreds of cases fighting this mandate, and objecting to the "accommodation" it offered — because by signing the form which on the one hand said we objected to covering these immoral "services," that very form triggered an alternate form of coverage to our employees, because they are our employees.

In other words, we were still being forced to be complicit in what we object to.

Our case, Priests for Life vs. HHS, and six others consolidated with it, was heard in the Supreme Court in 2016. Instead of ruling on the case, the justices said they believed a solution could be found and sent us all back to the bargaining table.

This was when Obama was still president, Biden was vice president and HHS staffed with Democrat appointees, and though we were willing to find that solution and had our attorneys represent us in multiple meetings with the Obama-Biden administration, that administration completely failed both to understand and accommodate our religious and moral objections.

Then, thank God, President Trump won the 2016 election, and when we sat down again with HHS – under new, pro-life leadership and with new government lawyers — they already were committed to protecting our religious freedom.

A formal agreement was crafted, we signed it, and we are now permanently exempt from having to violate our religious beliefs to cooperate in the evil of abortion.

The Trump administration the issued new rules, extending the exemptions originally offered by the mandate, so that those who have religious or moral objections would not be forced to violate their conscience.

Some states objected to the new and expanded exemptions. Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued, saying President Trump and his agencies had exceeded his authority. That was the case decided last week.

We know the case as the Little Sisters, but in reality, it was two consolidated cases, the first being Trump vs. Pennsylvania. So this victory was not just for the Little Sisters, but for every American determined to hold on to the religious liberty guaranteed to each and every one of us.

Certainly we should celebrate this victory but we also have to take steps to safeguard it. The decision could be short-lived. If Biden were to win in November, we don’t have to guess what he would do — he's already told us.

Reinstating the HHS mandate is not the only thing the Democrats would do if they take the White House and Senate and hold on to the House.

They will also codify Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) to make it a law that states could not circumvent, and they will repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects much of our taxpayer money from funding abortion.

And the abortion wish-list goes on and on.

Make no mistake — the battle resolved in the Supreme Court last week must be taken to the voting booth this fall or we’ll witness the hard left, having taken over the Democratic Party, reshape America into something we won't recognize

George Soros attacks the Church

By Rodney Pelletier, ChurchMilitant.com

A notorious billionaire is dumping almost a quarter billion dollars into groups pushing Marxism and black racial superiority, ultimately to attack the Catholic Church.

On Monday, hedge-fund billionaire and atheist George Soros announced "a new $220 million investment" to "build power in black communities and new anti-racist policies in the U.S."  

Racial violence has gripped major cities across the United States since May with Black Lives Matter (BLM) — an openly Marxist organization promoting homosexuality, transgenderism and the destruction of the Western nuclear family at the forefront of the violence.

Since 2015, Soros has supported the newborn organization with a leaked memo approving $650,000 "in Opportunities Fund support to invest in tecnical [sic] assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement."

His philanthropy organization, Open Society Foundations, has a $261.1 million budget for leftist efforts in the United States for 2020, more than 21% of its global budget.

He's also doubling donations to Democrat political action committees, from $20 million in 2016 to $40 million in 2020, all in an effort to thwart the re-election of Donald Trump.

But now BLM and other leftist organizations are turning their ire toward Catholics with the destruction of statues dedicated to St. Junípero Serra and the namesake of St. Louis, Missouri, the French medieval crusader king.

This is not the first time Soros has funded anti-Catholic movements. In 2016 he helped fund the effort to legalize abortion in Catholic Ireland.

A leaked Open Society Foundations memo is revealing the effort to "impact other strongly Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland, and provide much-needed proof that change is possible, even in highly conservative places."

For 30 years, Soros has been opposing Church teaching with his massive fortune, but with this latest move, he's openly declaring war on the Catholic Church.

COVID-19 Concerns Jettisoned For Protesters

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

A Catholic League analysis of the way six states have responded to outdoor gatherings, church services, and protesters reveals disparate treatment: there is one set of rules for protesters and another for everyone else.

California

A directive was issued on May 25 by the State Public Health Officer that treated faith-based services and protesters equally. It said it would make "an exception to the prohibition against mass gatherings for faith-based services and cultural ceremonies as well as protests." Restrictions were placed on indoor gatherings, but those held outdoors were permitted, provided there was social distancing.

However, on July 6, a ban was placed on chanting and singing in churches. No restrictions were mandated for protesters. In fact, there was no attempt to ensure that protesters practiced social distancing.

Illinois

In June, Gov. J.B. Pritzker placed restrictions on houses of worship, but none on protesters. He eased his most draconian restrictions at the end of June, but he still urged that singing and "group recitation" be curbed.

On June 4, the Department of Health asked that protesters get tested but nothing was mandated. Indeed, nothing was done about limiting the size of the protests or maintaining social distancing. Moreover, the chanting and "group recitation" ban imposed on churches did not apply.

Massachusetts

Gov. Charlie Baker put restrictions on indoor church services, but did  not treat outdoor church gatherings any different than secular outdoor gatherings. However, some outdoor assemblies have been banned altogether: festivals, walk-a-thons, road and bike races, and organized athletic events are prohibited until further notice.

Gov. Baker did make one exception to his directive. He declared that "outdoor gatherings for the purpose of political expression are not subject to this Order."

Minnesota

On June 15, the "Stay Safe MN" Phase II regulations issued by the Department of Health put restrictions on faith-based services, both indoor and outdoor. The Health Commissioner, Jan Malcolm, warned that protest gatherings could pose a public health risk. She urged, but did not require, social distancing, wearing masks and hand-washing.

Protests were not limited in size, as were church gatherings, and no attempt was made to enforce any restrictions on these assemblies.

New York

On June 8, four pages of mandated limitations on worship services were issued by the New York City Health Department, including a ban on chanting or yelling. On June 26, a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction on placing restrictions on church gatherings. Judge Gary Sharpe reprimanded Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo for showing "preferential treatment" to protesters.

Unlike everyone else, contact-tracers are not allowed to ask New Yorkers if they participated in a protest. Last week, de Blasio went further saying he is banning all parades through September. However, he said Black Lives Matter protests were too important to be subjected to the ban on large outside gatherings.

Washington

The state government's website puts forth restrictions on religious and faith-based organizations. It sounded the alarms by warning that "frequent reports of spiritual gatherings" can become "COVID-19 'superspreader' events."

On the protests, most especially those that engulfed Seattle, the Secretary of Health could not bring himself to address the threats to public health posed either by the violence itself, or by the mass gatherings of people in close quarters. These assemblies were not seen as "superspreader" events.

Summary

These states, and there are others like them, put on grand display how thoroughly politicized public health issues have become. State and local executives, along with leaders in the medical profession, have made a mockery of their alleged interest in public health, making everyone doubt their sincerity. Their contempt for religious liberty is beyond question.

In doing so, they have belittled their status and increased the likelihood that their future directives and guidelines will not be observed.

This week's Faith On Trial

Thursday @ 10 a.m. Central: Mail order abortions?? Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for Life; and the end of the Blaine Amendments? Lea Patterson from First Liberty.

10 a.m. Central on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM; IowaCatholicRadio.com, or download our free app. Join us this Thursday.

"The Summer Of Hate" Continues Unabated

By Catholic League President Bill Donohue

"The Summer of Love," as the clueless mayor of Seattle put it, has turned into "The Summer of Hate." Blood in the streets of urban America is a staple on weekends, and the destruction of historic statues—including Catholic ones—is spiking. While the carnage is the work of reckless thugs and left-wing activists, the tone is set by the elites: many either support these assaults or are too spineless to do anything about them.

The police across the nation are acting rationally by not extending themselves. If they do their job as expected, they risk being sued, risking sanctions that put their retirement benefits in jeopardy. The result is mayhem. 

A total of 18 people were shot in New York City from mid-day Saturday through Sunday night (a tropical storm kept the killers indoors on Friday). The previous weekend, 64 were shot and 10 were killed.

In Chicago this past weekend, 64 were shot and 13 were killed. Over the previous weekend, 70 were wounded and 17 were murdered.

Other cities seeing a sharp increase in shooting and killings include Philadelphia (a 6-year-old was shot in the chest on July 5); Minneapolis (a pregnant woman was shot this past weekend); and Cleveland (an 8-year-old girl was shot over the 4th of July weekend).

Denver and Louisville have seen the murder rate increase by 40% this year as compared to last year during the same time period. On the 4th of July itself, there was a spate of killings. In Atlanta an 8-year-old girl was murdered; in Washington D.C. an 11-year-old was killed; and in San Francisco and St. Louis, 6-year-olds were murdered.

When young people aren't being killed, Catholic property is being destroyed.

Over this past weekend, a statue of Our Blessed Mother was set on fire in Boston and another statue of the Virgin Mary was vandalized in Queens, New York. In Ocala, Florida a man crashed his minivan into a Catholic church while parishioners gathered for Mass; he then poured gasoline in the church's foyer and set the church ablaze.

San Gabriel Mission Church in Los Angeles County was set on fire on July 11, destroying parts of the 249-year-old iconic structure. It was founded by Saint Junípero Serra in 1771, the priest who was a staunch  defender of the rights of Indians (statues of Serra have been destroyed in many towns and cities throughout California).

Vandals were charged with a hate crime after they partially disfigured Mission San Jose, a church in Fremont, California. Swastikas and anti-Catholic comments were recently found on the graves of several Dominican friars on the campus of Providence College.

Sacred Heart Catholic school in Gallup, New Mexico was broken into last week and a statue of Jesus was vandalized. A statue outside St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Wasco, California was smashed last month. Church buildings were also attacked in Minnesota, New York, Kentucky, and Colorado.

This astonishing drop in respect for persons and property is the direct result of a culture turned against itself. The grievance culture is literally eating away at the social fabric. Charges of racism are everywhere, the effect of which is to dilute serious expressions of it. Claiming victim status is chic and pointing fingers is the latest fad.

This kind of cultural madness will continue until and unless political and cultural leaders insist on respect for human life and the heritage of Western civilization. Unfortunately, "The Summer of Hate" has a long way to go.

Roger Stone's "fair" trial; was justice done?

Over the weekend the president’s critics claimed his commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence was somehow an attack on the judicial system. The facts, however, show that Mr. Stone did not get a fair trial and when that information was presented to the judge she ignored it. The following is an article that was penned by noted liberal law professor Jonathan Turley for The Hill. Note that it was written back in February. After you read this, which is just one of the problems with the Stone prosecution, ask yourself: If you were in a similar position would you think your trial was fair with a person like this as foreman of the jury that convicted you?

+ + + + +

Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/15/20 10:30 AM EST 

She was Juror No. 1261, and her examination by the federal court and counsel before the trial was anything but notable. And that is precisely the problem.

Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.” 

That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.

I have previously written about how I believe that the DOJ was correct in its rejection of the absurdly high recommendation of seven to nine years in prison for Stone. However, there are legitimate questions that must still be addressed on how the Justice Department came to that decision. Yet while cable shows exhaustively cover that story, there is an equally serious question as to whether the conviction itself, rather than the sentencing recommendation, should be reevaluated.

Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

In addition to her prior statements about Trump, his associates and this case, Hart is a lawyer. That only magnifies concerns that any bias on her part may have had a more pronounced influence on her fellow jurors.

In fact, except for a jury pool composed entirely of House impeachment managers, Hart would appear to be a standout for a peremptory challenge by the defense team over bias. That is why the most surprising aspect of this story is not the review of her public statements but the review of her examination before trial. The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not. 

While Hart’s answers on the jury questionnaire remain sealed, Judge Jackson noted, “You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media, including about political things?” Hart does not volunteer that she did far more than “pay attention to news and social media” and was, in fact, an anti-Trump protester and social media critic.

Jackson seemed unaware of anything more than Hart’s following the news and asked if anything that Hart saw would affect her views. Hart again did not mention her protesting or public commentary and said she could not think of anything that would cause bias — “nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch, sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background, CNN. So, I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.”

She never mentioned that she specifically discussed Stone’s arrest and the objections to his treatment during that arrest as well as denouncing all of the associates of Trump as a virtual criminal enterprise.

Stone’s counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart’s actual political activism and commentary.

That lack of knowledge is not surprising since multiple questions on the jury questionnaire allowed her to reveal her past protests and postings. For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had "written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?" Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

The burden now is on Judge Jackson to hold a hearing on this matter and address the possible need for a mistrial. And one thing will be clear: Judge Jackson, in the words of Juror No. 1261, does not “gotta love” any of this.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.