Corporate censorship/wokeness on Faith On Trial

This week on FOT we dealt with how major U.S. corporations are restricting free speech and religious freedom https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/. Our guest was Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president for corporate engagement with the Alliance Defending Freedom. In addition we discussed Black Rock and ESG (Environment/Social/Government) the influence of these woke agents have on the business climate, and how to check the “wokeness” of companies in which you are interested: viewpointdiversityscore.com.

NY Gov. And AG Downplay Sexual Abuse

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

When Kathy Hochul succeeded Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York (she was his lieutenant governor), she was asked about the culture of sexual abuse that had arisen under her boss. “Anyone who crosses the line will be addressed by me.” Not true.

Hochul is giving a pass to an accused sexual abuser in her administration, Ibrahim Khan, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Letitia James: he is accused of sexually harassing a former AG employee, Sofia Quintanar. Hochul said last week that she does not support an investigation of this matter. But when it came to probes of accused priests, she supported all of them.

Attorney General Letitia James was also tough on Cuomo. “Allegations of sexual harassment should always be taken seriously. There must be a truly independent investigation to thoroughly review these troubling allegations against the governor, and I stand ready to oversee that investigation and make any appointments necessary.” Not true.

Now that allegations are being made about her chief of staff, James changed her tune. Indeed, she is accused of covering up for Khan for two months as she ran for reelection. Why didn’t she call the cops—the bishops are supposed to call the cops when they learn of accusations against one of their priests—and let them handle the matter?

Here’s the answer. James discovered the due process rights of Khan, rights that she never insisted on when priests were being charged. “We’re protecting the rights of individuals and it’s important to understand this was a private investigation….” She added that “it’s important we protect the privacy of individuals.” Are not priests individuals?

The next time an accusation is made against a priest in New York State, the bishops should refuse to cooperate with the authorities. They should publicly state that they are taking a page out of the Hochul-James book and conduct their own private investigation, asserting the due process rights of priests.

This is beyond hypocrisy—the governor and attorney general are playing us, making a mockery of justice. Elected officials in both parties need to demand equal justice and demand a probe of why Hochul and James are treating the alleged victim of sexual misconduct—a woman in their employ—with such casualness.

Whatever happened to the #MeToo movement? And weren’t women supposed to be treated better when their boss was a woman?

Dems’ War On Religion

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – I’ve mentioned in this column before that I was at one time a respected member of the Democratic Party. I held party and political office in and through that organization.

Of course we’ve long since parted ways. Originally it was over the issue of abortion, which at the time the party defended as needing to be “safe, legal, and rare.” While a mild statement compared to today’s party agenda, it was enough to cause me to rethink my loyalties.

But after watching how my former party has knitted together its electoral vision for the nation I have come to the sad conclusion that the Democratic Party stands for more than just abortion on demand. It stands for immorality at its core, and not only fosters those beliefs, but actively tries to impose that immorality on the nation while at the same time trying desperately to silence the Church, its adherents, and those who dare to speak the truth of God.

This is not a partisan statement; this is the result of those who have decided to seek secular glory rather than following the teachings of Jesus Christ. In short, the political battle has turned into a war between the forces of Hell and the forces of God.

Now I don’t mean to describe all Democrats or paint with too broad a brush. It is the demonic leadership that is leading many of their God-fearing members to the brink of perdition. This is also a cautionary tale warning those “low information” types to wake up and see what is being done with their support, for as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said:

“It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unconscious of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times.”

I mentioned abortion above. There is probably not much more I can say to a Christian audience that it does not know already. What I want to emphasize, however, is exactly what the party and its officeholders have done. Abortion is now a tenet of their faith and nothing should be allowed to interfere with it. Thus it is allowed up to and including the day of a child’s birth, and some states, such as California, are expanding it beyond birth by prohibiting any investigation into the death of a newborn — even to call for legal action against anyone opening such an investigation.

In addition, crisis pregnancy centers have been targeted and there is legislation being proposed in several venues that would outlaw theses centers of compassion altogether. And who are standing with and leading this pro-death parade: the leaders of the Democratic Party, many of whom claim to be devout Catholics.

Promoting infanticide and stopping those trying to stop it is not a partisan activity. It is activity dictated by, as Screwtape would tell his nephew Wormwood, Our Father Below.

Crisis pregnancy centers are not the only targets of this demonic activity. In the name of gender and sexual “equality” Catholic and Christian organizations who wish to promote the faith in schools, colleges, adoption agencies, and other venues are increasingly facing the wrath of Democratic and liberal officeholders who are trying to force them to “accommodate” those who not only violate the tenets of Christianity, but who seek to erase them from our culture.

For example, a suit has just been filed in Michigan by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is trying to protect a Catholic parish from being forced to hire teachers who do not subscribe to the Church’s beliefs on marriage and gender identity. If the defense fails, the parish will be prohibited from requiring dogmatic conformity in its hiring practices, especially for school teachers, and if it sticks to its guns, be disqualified from participating in civic activities, such as athletic associations.

And if you are a regular reader here you know that although this lawsuit is new, the issue is not. For years officeholders have tried to use antidiscrimination laws to force compliance with their version of social dogma. Christian schools, churches, and adoption agencies have been attacked by blue-state officials, challenging their right to follow their biblical beliefs in the public square.

It is only by the grace of God that these entities have been saved from this onslaught by judges who believe in the constitutional protection of religious liberty. But don’t make any mistakes here. New laws and court cases are piling up that deliberately either do not provide a religious exceptions or specifically deny it.

As I write my column, a current example of this will be making its way to the president’s desk shortly, something called the Respect for Marriage Act. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? It passed the Senate with scant support from the GOP, many of whom are regular RINOs and a few just stupid or ignorant, and the House with a solid “all Democrats on board” partisan vote.

Here is what the bill does, besides recognizing the legality of same-sex and inter-racial marriage:

According to the Heritage Foundation, schools or adoption agencies that try to live by their biblical view of marriage would be subject to loss of tax-exempt status and their licenses to operate, thus rendering them unable to continue their activities.

Now the Democrats claim that the bill “respects” the sincerely held biblical belief of one man-one woman marriage. However, it does nothing to allow those with that respected belief to live out that belief. There is no religious liberty provision to protect those who wish to live by those beliefs. Thus Christian adoption agencies will not be able to prefer a traditionally married couple over transgender persons, those in irregular marriages, and single applicants.

The claim is that this is just a civil rights act. It creates a national policy that the rights of those non-biblical marriages are fundamental. Go back to the 1983 Bob Jones University case in which the Supreme Court held that violators of “national” and “fundamental” policies could have their tax status revoked.

And just recently a story came across my desk that 18 Democratic attorneys general are joining in an appellate brief against a Catholic high school in North Carolina that terminated a teacher in a homosexual marriage.

So whom are they fooling here?

And, of course, I don’t have time or space to get into the whole matter of transgender rights and how public schools are actually grooming young children to question their sexual identity — as if I haven’t written enough about that already. This is being done behind the backs of parents who are oft stymied to get answers from officials who are supported by the Democrats’ chief fundraisers, the teachers unions.

I don’t believe that the average Democrat really knows the depth of their involvement with the insidious activities promoted in their name. I think it is time to wake them up. If our bishops and pastors will not do it, then it must to be up to us.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday on Faith On Trial at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial)

Why Invite A Drag Queen To The White House?

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

President Biden will sign the Respect for Marriage Act today, codifying gay marriage. Among the guests will be Marti Gould Cummings. “To be a non binary drag queen artist invited to the White House is something I never imagined would happen.” 

Cummings is not who he says he is. There is no such thing as a “non-binary” person—such creatures are a figment of his imagination. In 2019, he was more honest when he said, “I’m a gay man in dress.” 

Why was a drag queen invited to a White House ceremony heralding same-sex marriage? It is telling that it did. 

Drag queens have nothing to do with the lives of most homosexuals, but they are integral to the radical LGBT agenda. And what is that agenda? To normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. This is not an exaggeration. Here’s the proof. 

Cummings is known to partake in Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), seizing the opportunity provided by libraries to “entertain” little kids. But to what end? Clowns entertain kids, too, but there is nothing sexual about their performance. 

Michelle Tomasik, who goes by the name Michelle Tea, founded DQSH in San Francisco in 2015. She told a gay media outlet that the goal was to introduce kids to the “LGBTQ+ culture.” And what might that be? 

The American Library Association (ALA) is responsible for the spread of DQSH across the country; local libraries pay homosexuals to run the events. A blog post to the ALA a few years ago encouraged librarians to promote the LGBT agenda by “sneakily fit[ting] stuff in current programs.” Sneaking it by parents, of course. 

One of the most popular books stocked by libraries is The Gender Fairy. It is meant for infants. It tells them “only you know whether you are a boy to girl. No one can tell you.” Again, this is aimed at subverting parental rights. Similarly, a teacher was caught on video telling her class, “It’s OK to be different. There is no such thing as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ things.” The students were first graders. 

It’s all about “gender fluidity,” the intentional warping of children’s minds, beckoning them to question whether they are really happy being a boy or a girl. This is called grooming. It is also child abuse. 

So what has any of this to do with an event that purports to celebrate gay marriage? The White House knows the answer, otherwise Cummings would not have been invited. The purpose is to demonstrate that drag queens are integral to LGBT culture. 

No one epitomizes the link between drag queens and the LGBT culture better than Ru Paul. Not only is he the most famous drag queen of all time, he boasts of his relationship with Georges LeBar, calling it an “open marriage.” It would be astonishing to learn that he was monogamous. 

In other words, the link between “gender fluidity” and promiscuity is tight: both are an assault on the Judeo-Christian understanding of sex—God created male and female—and a sexual ethic that stresses the virtue of restraint. Libertinism—the absence of sexual strictures—is what defines the radical LGBT agenda. 

Cummings says he began his role as a drag queen as a testimony to “genderf***ing.” What does this mean? According to its adherents, it is “a form of gender expression that seeks to subvert the traditional gender binary or gender roles by mixing traditionally masculine (such as a beard) and traditionally feminine (such as a dress) components.” 

In short, the goal of drag queens is “to intentionally confuse the audience.” The target audience, remember, is children. Drag queens want to get to the kids because children are formative, and they resent the fact that they are denied by nature from having children of their own. Hence, the impulse to groom. 

I mentioned how the LGBT agenda is to normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. According to Billboard, in 2019, Cummings posted a video on Twitter and Instagram of him singing “Baby Shark” to “a 2-year-old boy.” 

There is something very sick going on in the White House. Even more perverse, it is being championed by our “devout Catholic” president.

Heart-Stopper: Why Are So Many Young, Healthy Male Athletes Collapsing Worldwide? - The Stream

Heart-Stopper: Why Are So Many Young, Healthy Male Athletes Collapsing Worldwide? - The Stream: With much of the pandemic in the rearview mirror, it’s time to find answers to hard questions about deaths among healthy male athletes.

... No, it’s not normal for this many young, healthy male athletes to collapse on the field, in the gym, on the court or in the ring. It’s not normal for a population so often admired as the gold standard for optimal health to drop dead on the spot when exercising. In fact, there’s nothing “normal” about it. ...

What Democrats Are Trying to Pass Before Their House Majority Ends

By Jarrett Stepman@JarrettStepman

Jarrett Stepman is a columnist for The Daily Signal. He is also the author of the book "The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past." Send an email to Jarrett

Democrats are in a mad scramble to push through unpopular legislation before the clock strikes midnight on the 117th Congress.

The lame-duck session is the period between November’s congressional elections and the convening of the new 118th Congress on Jan. 3.

With some Republican help, Democrats in the Senate passed the so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and orders the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. 

But that’s not all.

The legislation has significant implications for religious freedom. It awaits passage in the House, where Democrats still have a slim majority until the new session. Republicans will hold a similarly narrow majority in the House next year.

Jamming through controversial legislation through Congress during a lame-duck session is a troubling practice to begin with. It’s becoming increasingly common to bring up more hotly contested legislation that didn’t have a chance of passing when vulnerable legislators had to face an election—and the voters.

Democrats are so concerned with “democracy” that they are scrambling to head off the results of last month’s elections, it seems. As is often the case, the Left cares little about the proper functioning of government when its priorities are at stake.

The Washington Post editorial board called on Democrats in Congress to make this lame-duck session a “mighty one.” Imagine how The Post would describe the situation if it were Republicans seeking to push a conservative agenda through.

In addition to “the Respect for Marriage Act,” here are four more of the most controversial pieces of legislation being considered by the current lame-duck Congress:

‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On Thanksgiving, President Joe Biden said that he wanted Congress to pass an “assault weapons” ban during the lame-duck session.

“The idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Biden said at a Thanksgiving Day press event in Nantucket, Mass. “Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it, except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

He then said that he would try to “get rid of assault weapons.”

What exactly Biden means there is a bit hard to decipher. If the aim is truly to ban “semiautomatic” weapons, that would include many rifles and handguns. As Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., noted on Twitter, semiautomatic weapons comprise about half of all gun sales in the U.S.

There are many, many reasons to have semiautomatic weapons. Not that Biden or his fellow Democrats want to acknowledge that.

Despite Biden’s call for an “assault weapons” ban, it seems top Democrats in the Senate aren’t sure they have the votes to pass the legislation. The House of Representatives, controlled for a few more weeks by Democrats, passed gun control legislation in July, but the bill stalled in the Senate.

“I’m glad that President Biden is going to be pushing us to take a vote on an assault weapons ban,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on CNN. “The House has already passed it. It’s sitting in front of the Senate. Does it have 60 votes in the Senate right now? Probably not, but let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible.”

Even if Democrats in the Senate all vote in favor of the legislation, they would still need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a certain GOP filibuster.

Electoral Count Act

Democrats are looking to change the Electoral Count Act. This 1887 law laid out the procedure for counting Electoral College votes following a presidential election. It became a hotly contested issue following the 2020 presidential vote.

The law was the result of the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, in which four states sent Congress competing sets of Electoral College votes. 

Here’s how my colleague Fred Lucas described the Electoral College Act, which was meant to clarify the process:

To give Congress a means for settling the matter, the 1887 law required a joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes from each state and stipulated that the vice president, as presiding officer, would certify the results.

However, if an objection to the count is declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator, the joint session would temporarily adjourn, and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours. The chambers would vote on the lawmakers’ objection before reconvening in the joint session.

There have been bipartisan talks to remove that power from Congress. Some Democrats, however, want to see more widespread changes to the U.S. voting system to effectively federalize the process.

“The bare minimum, absolutely; but we need to go further than that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said of reforming the Electoral Count Act. “We need to look at the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.”

The John R. Lewis Advancement Act would, among other things, increase federal veto power over state election laws through the Justice Department.

Omnibus Spending Bill

The Biden administration is looking to drastically increase federal spending through a massive omnibus bill during the lame-duck period. The administration asked for more than $47 billion to be spent on aid to Ukraine, COVID-19, and other projects.

As Matthew Dickerson, federal budget expert at The Heritage Foundation, explained in The Daily Signal, that level of spending in the lame-duck period is irresponsible at a time when the U.S. economy is experiencing the highest inflation rate in decades. (The Daily Signal is the media outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“This supplemental spending request for Ukraine aid and COVID-19 funding is more than an entire year’s worth of regular appropriations for the departments of Agriculture and Interior combined,” he wrote.

Dickerson wrote that the Ukraine spending—which already exceeds the spending on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security this year—deserves a thorough debate and examination by the new Congress.

Passing such a major piece of spending legislation in a lame-duck session preceding a shift in partisan control of the House in January would be an unprecedented move, according to Eric Teetsel, Heritage’s vice president of government relations.

“Since 1994, control of the House has changed hands in four midterm election cycles (1994, 2006, 2010, and 2018). Never before has the outgoing House majority passed an omnibus appropriations bill during the lame-duck session following the election,” he wrote.

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Congressional Democrats are seeking to codify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were children.

DACA was originally enacted in 2012 under President Barack Obama by executive fiat—the “pen and phone” presidency at work. It was struck down by a federal judge in 2021 and could be blocked by the Supreme Court, too. Democrats are now back to pursuing a more traditional path of passing a bill through Congress. (You know, that quaint process once described in “Schoolhouse Rock!”)

At a Nov. 16 event on Capitol Hill with a group of Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for passing an amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

“I call on my Republican colleagues to join Democrats and help us protect our Dreamers,” Schumer said. “It is cruel and inhumane to keep millions in limbo. Senate Republicans need to work with us on this widely supported policy so we can reach an agreement that will protect families and strengthen our economy.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. and House Judiciary Committee chairman, has also been working on DACA legislation.

Here’s how Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, described the Nadler initiative to double down on DACA:

Nadler’s plan is not only to codify DACA, which has about 600,000 enrollees, but also to extend that amnesty to an estimated 4.4 million illegal aliens. In other words, what is being sold as a small fix would actually become the largest amnesty in history—far exceeding the number of people who were legalized as a result of legislation passed in 1986.

Libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour reject Kirk Cameron’s religious event because of ‘diversity’

(LifeSiteNews) – Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s efforts to hold faith-based story presentations in public libraries across the country have been rejected more than 50 times, according to his publisher, in a sharp contrast to the ongoing controversy over Drag Queen Story Hour.

Fox News reports that Cameron, the Growing Pains star who in recent years has become known for more religious works, is currently promoting his new children’s book As You Grow, which uses the development of a massive tree as a tool to teach about “love, joy, and gentleness.” But publisher Brave Books’ outreach efforts to local educational institutions have so far been rebuked.

“No, we will pass on having you run a program in our space,” the Rochambeau Public Library in Providence, Rhode Island reportedly said. “We are a very queer-friendly library. Our messaging does not align.”

“I don’t think that’s something that we would do,” echoed the City Heights/Weingart Branch Library in San Diego, California. “Because of how diverse our community is, I don’t know how many people you would get.”

“Generally when we have author visits, those are coordinated through our departments. We really have a push,” said a representative of the Indianapolis Public Library’s central location. “We have a strategic plan in place, so we are really looking at authors who are diverse. Authors of color. That’s really been our focus.” When Brave noted that Cameron’s book would contribute to ideological diversity, the employee reportedly clarified, “well, we are focusing on racial equity.”

All told, Brave says more than 50 libraries either outright rejected them or failed to respond, yet many of those same libraries host Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) sessions, in which cross-dressers read to children, and openly advertise a variety of other LGBT-themed events.

DQSH organizers admit that one of these events’ central purposes is to indoctrinate children about “learn[ing] to see beyond the pink and blue gender binary.” Many have exposed children to sexually-charged performances as well as performers who range from x-rated performers in their day jobs to convicted pedophiles and prostitutes.

That so many libraries exercise discretion in allowing DQSH while rejecting Cameron’s Christian-themed presentation undermines a key legal argument made in defense of libraries by voices such as former conservative pundit David French: that localities have no choice but to allow the former in the name of “viewpoint neutrality.” This belief has created a dilemma for more conservative jurisdictions, forcing some to stop renting public spaces to outside groups entirely.

In 2019, Amherst College political scientist and Born-Alive Infant Protection Act architect Hadley Arkes argued that the U.S. Supreme Court precedents Widmar v. Vincent and Cohen v. California created this problem at the expense of the U.S. Constitution’s actual meaning by adopting a form of relativism in which “there was no principled ground for recognizing a class of obscene or assaulting speech, and no grounds of truth in testing political speech.”

In the meantime, Cameron tells Fox that his experience is “proof that more than ever, we are getting destroyed in the battle for the hearts and minds of our children. Publicly funded libraries are green-lighting ‘gender marker and name change clinics’ while denying a story time that would involve the reading of a book that teaches biblical wisdom. How much more clear can it get?”

“We have to start fighting back, or we will lose our kids and this country,” he warns.

The Respect for Marriage Act Explained

Does the 'Respect for Marriage Act' harm religious freedom? This week on FOT

“Yes,” says this week’s guest, Emma Waters of the Heritage Foundation. She explains how the act will perpetuate anti-religious litigation against those who believe in the biblical view of marriage https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/. After the Act’s passage, Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, issued a statement which was also critical of the legislation: 

Congress just passed a law that punishes the free exercise of religion. The so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” lets radical activists harass faith-based institutions in court because of their religious beliefs about marriage.  No American should be punished for holding a faith-based view on marriage, even if that view conflicts with the government’s current preferred definition.  And, no American should change their religious convictions about marriage just because a few politicians changed theirs.

Click the link above and listen to the entire interview with Emma Waters.

Libraries reject wholesome story hours

Fifty public libraries have rejected a wholesome “story hour” with Christian actor Kirk Cameron, whose team reached out to dozens of libraries to book him for a reading of his new book “As We Grow.” Not one library has agreed to have him. “Publicly funded libraries are green-lighting ‘gender marker and name change clinics’ while denying a story time that would involve the reading of a book that teaches biblical wisdom,” Cameron said. “We have to start fighting back, or we will lose our kids and this country.”  READ

Michigan Catholics sue over LGBTQ rule

The Catholic parish of St. Joseph in St. Johns, MI, is suing the state's attorney general over the state Supreme Court’s recent redefinition of “sex” discrimination to encompass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” arguing that the redefinition, among other things, threatens the parish’s ability to hire people who model the Church’s teachings.  READ 

Voting 101

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Well, I guess all good things must come to an end. I’ve spent the last few weeks trying to avoid the elections and eventual commentary, but it’s time I get back to those topics. Although, so you don’t worry about me, I didn’t go cold turkey altogether: We did have a political editor on the radio program right after to discuss the results and we interviewed our attorney general elect right after her upset victory.

So now, back to business — or “regular order” in political speak.

As you know from reading the last few columns I have a thing for Philadelphia. It was my family home, both my parents were born there and I spent a lot of time in my youth visiting relatives every summer. Love the athletic teams; its history; the Mummers; Automat, Horn & Hardart, and the Eagle at Wanamaker’s.

So it is not unusual for me to follow Philly politics and that includes statewide races for governor, senator, and president. Thus I took more than a glancing look at this year’s Senate contest and from it I have developed some ideas about what is wrong with our elections.

But first let’s refresh our memories and take a quick look back at the 2020 results. During that election, many states and local jurisdictions made several administrative changes in their election procedures that they claimed were necessary due to the severity of the pandemic. Many of those changes, such as unattended ballot drop boxes, as well as questionable early voting and mail-in voting procedures, were blamed for some major irregularities that infected that election and caused the ruckus afterward.

Many of these were highlighted in Mollie Hemingway’s 2021 book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections, and Dinesh D’Souza’s 2022 film, 2000 Mules, among others.

As a consequence, many states have revised their voting laws to curb abuses and to provide safer, more trustworthy elections. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania legislature was among those states that tried to make corrections in its election laws to curb some of the abuses that were found, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed it.

Since to me, Pennsylvania is a poster-child for how not to do things, I think it is interesting to look into some of its problems to see what might be learned from it.

Of course one of the first things we notice from the state results was that the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, John Fetterman, suffered a stroke during his primary and was never truly cognitive throughout the campaign. Now, as a stroke victim myself, I can sympathize with the man wanting to return to his profession (he was the sitting lieutenant governor) as quickly as possible.

So how could this man be elected especially after the debate performance he turned in gave lie to his party’s claim that the effects of the stroke were no barrier to his service in the Senate?
The easy answer, of course, is that early voting in the state began some 50 days before Election Day. Now one of the oldest chapters in the political playbook deals with off-site voting: Those ballots that are cast outside the view of election officials.

For as long as states administered elections, political operatives have tried to obtain as many of these early ballots as possible. Several methods are used, but the result is the same for all: bag enough early votes — by hook or by crook — and you’ll already have a nice lead before the Election Day itself. Some states even allow political apparatchiks to gather those early ballots and return them to designated receptacles.

Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the mischief this could play in a close election. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they emphasize voting in person on Election Day and they haven’t quite caught up with the Democrats’ playbook here. However, I suspect they will and will actually be better at that game than the Dems. Of course when that happens everyone will decide that it is time to play the game without all the early voting.

Of course it should be noted that there are many valid reasons for early voting — illness, business travel, armed forces, etc. so there should be a safe method to conduct it. But obviously there needs to be better time constraints. There is no logical reason for a 50-day period. Ten days to two weeks is surely enough.

But along with that we should be discouraging as much of the mail-in voting as possible. The solution, during this early voting period, is satellite stations, manned by election officials where voters can go to cast early ballots in person. Now a central station, opened normal business hours at the local courthouse, can easily fill the bill. Outlying stations can be placed in libraries, city halls, and other public places and do not need to be open every day for business hours. A library booth might, for example, be open only on Wednesday mornings and Monday afternoons.

Thus early voters could be channeled into “official” stations where IDs could be checked and normal procedures for in-person voting could be used as would be done on the actual day of election.

Now my next suggestion is this: Close early voting on the Friday before the election. Then, over the weekend, all the early votes cast — that will come in secured envelopes validated by election officials — can be sorted into their proper precincts and on Monday they should be delivered to the individual precinct where the voter would have voted. The morning of the election, before the polls are open to the public, judges and partisan observers could open the envelopes and put the ballot through the tabulation machines for that precinct. Thus ending the horrific delay in producing election results while waiting for the “early” votes to be counted.

Now those that have been mailed into the election office can be signature and ID verified by normal election officials, along with partisan observers, verified, placed back into their envelopes, and delivered to the proper precincts with the others.

My idea here is to limit the number of people who must touch each ballot. Normally only the poll worker who hands out the ballot and the voter touch the ballot before it is placed into the tabulation machine. Under my plan that would only increase by one more person if mail-in or early ballots are treated as I am suggesting.

Additionally, under this proposal the authentication of early ballots would be much easier since it would be done normally at satellite venues and in the election office for mail-in ballots. And by voting those ballots in the voter’s home precinct, it should eliminate the delay in tabulating all results and eliminate those hazy boxes full of unidentified ballots that just happen to show up overnight.

Fortunately many states use many of these procedures already, but it would be nice to have a uniform ballot protection law that could mandate this throughout the nation. Of course it would also require that the practice of ballot harvesting be banned in every state.

The only other matter to correct is to reinforce the constitutional requirement that only the state legislature may regulate the “times, places, and manner of holding elections” [Art.1 Sec. 4] for Congress. That was generally ignored by some states and local officials in 2020 as they tried to tailor new rules to “concerns” over the pandemic.

That, however, will probably be done in the Supreme Court’s new term as it has agreed to hear a reapportionment case from North Carolina, Moore v. Harper, which deals with the same constitutional provision. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for December 7.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday on Faith On Trial at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/.)

Seattle Area Fascists Censor Christmas

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

What do banning Christmas, mass killings, attacks on churches, support for the radical LGBT agenda, and promoting riots have in common? Moral anarchy. Welcome to King County, Washington, which includes Seattle. 

It is not unconstitutional for public employees to wear religious apparel, but in King County they will punish you if you do. In the name of equity, the fascists who work in Human Resources (HR) have decided that all Christmas and Hanukkah decorations are banned. But it is okay to celebrate LGBT Pride and Black Lives Matter. 

The justification for the censorship is that “Some employees may not share your religion, practice any religion, or share your enthusiasm for holiday decorations.” This is true. It is also true that some employees may not be enthusiastic about celebrating sodomy or racism, yet those who do so are applauded for their behavior. 

Employees are being warned not to have religious decorations in the workplace “including your virtual workplace.” So now they are policing your home! 

“Religious symbols are not appropriate in these [common] areas, because it may cause disruption to co-workers or members of the public that do not share that particular religion,” the HR memo says. In other words, because religious bigots may be offended by a nativity scene, Christians lose their rights. 

This is what Harry Kalven once called the “heckler’s veto,” meaning the right of hecklers to deny the free speech of those with whom they disagree. If this were to be allowed, only sterile debate would be permitted. By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this tactic unconstitutional in 1949 (see Terminiello v. City of Chicago). 

In 2020, while innocent people were shot and raped, the mayor of Seattle called it the “Summer of Love.” Nothing much has changed since. Crime is out of control, with a record number of homicides, rapes, robberies, aggravated assault—to say nothing of police officers being shot. Bad as this is, the anarchists didn’t have to vandalize churches, or bask in sexually degrading behaviors, but they did. 

It all makes good sociological sense. The common thread uniting violence, moral destitution and attacks on churches is a deep-seated hatred for God. We’ve seen this before in history—the French Revolution, for example. The results are always ugly. 

It would be so refreshing if those who work in King County were to practice civil disobedience and decorate their work area with religious symbols, letting the courts decide who is right. It is one thing for the government to formally endorse a religion; it is quite another for government bureaucrats to dictate what employees can celebrate. 

It’s time for a “Winter of Resistance” in Seattle.

Democrat attorneys general seek to force Catholic schools to hire homosexual teachers

 

The lawyers' amicus brief argues that Catholic high schools do not have a right to hire and fire people in accordance with Church teaching. 

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (LifeSiteNews) — Eighteen Democrat attorneys general have joined in an amicus brief against a Catholic high school who fired a substitute teacher in a homosexual “marriage.”

The brief, filed last week, argued that the Catholic high school does not have a right to not hire individuals that live a lifestyle incongruent with Catholicism. A federal court ruled in September 2021 against the high school and this case is now on appeal. 

The liberal attorneys general sided with Lonnie Billard, a homosexual substitute teacher who was let go from his job at Charlotte Catholic High School after “marrying” his partner. The Democrat attorneys general wants the Catholic high school punished for firing Billard, despite him living in open opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church, values which the Catholic school is bound to uphold.

“Employees have a right to work free from discrimination, including the right to marry whom they love,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong wrote in his news release. “The First Amendment is not a license for employers to discriminate. The North Carolina district court got this one right, and the defendants’ extreme and expansive theories here must be rejected.” 

“No one should be fired because of who they love,” Massachusetts’ Attorney General Maura Healey wrote. “We are filing this brief to ensure that our LGBTQ+ workers have equal protections and opportunities in the workplace.” 

But Becket Law, which represents the high school, explains that religious freedom must protect the hiring and firing decision of religious institutions. 

“The Constitution and federal law protect the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children, and the right of religious institutions like the Diocese of Charlotte to select teachers who agree to uphold their religious mission,” the legal non-profit explained. “These rights have repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, which has emphasized that ‘educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school,’” the group wrote. 

“Religious organizations must be free to choose those who carry out their religious mission,” Becket Law noted. “This not only protects the fundamental freedoms of parents and religious schools to decide how to pass on their faith, but also protects the proper separation of church and state.” 

The court case comes at a time when Democrats, along with liberal Republicans, are pushing to put a federal “right” to same-sex “marriage” into law, despite significant religious liberty concerns. 

[The Bill passed the senate a short time ago. Iowa Republican Joni Ernst voted in favor.]

“The bill repeals the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and requires the federal government and all 50 states to recognize homosexual ‘marriages’ and other civil marriages between ‘2 individuals’ lawfully performed in any state, potentially including incestuous and underage marriages,” LifeSiteNews previously reported. 

The legislation must pass the U.S. House in order to move forward. A vote is expected Tuesday.

Former Army lieutenant colonel speaks out after losing career for refusing COVID jab

(LifeSiteNews) – Refusing a COVID-19 vaccine was a “no-brainer” despite the career ramifications, says former U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bradley Miller.

In October 2021, Miller was relieved of his position as battalion commander in the 101st Airborne Division for not taking the mandatory shot and opted to resign completely the following January.

“I was very well aware of the ramifications my decision would have for my command, my career, and my retirement,” Miller told American Family News in comments published Tuesday. “But in my mind, I was placed in a situation where I had to choose the harder right over the easier wrong.”

He lamented being forced to “either choose the Army or choose the country,” and that in his view “far too many leaders of the military have turned their back on the country,” despite the fact that “the Armed Forces exist to protect the country – it’s not the other way around.”

Despite losing not only his career but his retirement pension, Miller said “there’s not a day that has gone by where I have ever regretted the decision that I made […] It felt like my continued service would have constituted an unspoken endorsement of everything that was going on [surrounding the military vaccine mandate] – and I was not going to have that. My values no longer aligned with the values of the senior leadership of the Department of Defense.”

Last August, at the direction of President Joe Biden, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered the secretaries of all military branches to “immediately begin full [COVID] vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces” and “impose ambitious timelines for implementation.” The majority of service members complied, but tens of thousands remain unvaccinated, with many seeking exemptions.