Tag Archives: DACA

Mainstream media defends Pope accused of covering up homosexual sexual assaults

Barack Obama shakes hands with Pope Francis
Barack Obama shakes hands with Pope Francis

During the past week, news stories reported that Pope Francis actually knew about the epidemic of sexual assaults and rapes by homosexual priests in the Catholic church. His response leaves a lot to be desired.

The National Catholic Register reported this earlier in the week:

In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, said that in the late 2000s, Benedict had “imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis” and that Viganò personally told Pope Francis about those sanctions in 2013.

Archbishop Viganò said in his written statement, simultaneously released to the Register and other media, (see full text below) that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for McCarrick and not only did he “not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him” but also made McCarrick “his trusted counselor.” Viganò said that the former archbishop of Washington advised the Pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States, including Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark.

Archbishop Viganò, who said his “conscience dictates” that the truth be known as “the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy,” ended his testimony by calling on Pope Francis and all of those implicated in the cover up of Archbishop McCarrick’s abuse to resign.

Speaking as a Protestant, I thought that Benedict was the best Pope the Roman Catholic church ever had. I used to call him “The Protestant Pope”, because he had so few of the problems that Protestants like me dislike about Roman Catholic doctrines. It doesn’t surprise me that he did the right thing when the crisis was brought to his attention. But his successor has not done the right thing. He has different priorities.

The New York Times reported:

As he flew near Caribbean islands devastated by Hurricane Irma on his way back to the Vatican from Colombia on Sunday, Pope Francis said that political leaders and others who denied climate change reminded him of a passage from the psalms about man’s stubbornness.

[…]On the flight, the pope nevertheless appealed again to Mr. Trump, this time on his decision to end President Obama’s Deferred Action for Children Program, known as DACA.

[…]In contrast to his negative appraisal of Mr. Trump’s approach to immigration, the pope praised Italy’s efforts to welcome large numbers of migrants even as it sought to stem the tide of immigrants coming from Libya.

In fact, the defenders of the Pope made clear that his priorities are global warming and open borders, not following what the Bible says about sex outside of marriage.

Catholic journalist Emily Zanotti explains, in the Daily Wire:

In a bizarre interview with a Chicago NBC affiliate, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, head of the Archdiocese of Chicago, suggested recent claims made by a former apostolic nuncio — the Vatican’s envoy to the United States — that Pope Francis not only disregarded sexual abuse allegations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, but promoted McCarrick and sought his counsel, were going down a “rabbit hole.”

The Pope, Cupich told NBC, has more important things to attend to than sex abuse scandals, like climate change and immigration.

“The Pope has a bigger agenda,” Cardinal Cupich said. “He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”

Clearly, this is the focus of Catholic church leadership. Global warming and open borders both help to destroy free market capitalism, and increase the size of the secular government.  (Global warming alarmism allows the government to tax and regulate energy production and consumption, and open borders brings in a lot of low-skilled immigrants who tend to vote for higher taxes and more welfare spending). That’s the Pope’s priority. And since it’s also the mainstream media’s priority, they are defending him from his critics.

Ben Shapiro, writing in the far-left Newsweek, explains:

So, did the press leap to investigate Vigano’s claims? Did they demand answers from Pope Francis? Did we see the same type of courageous, comprehensive coverage of Francis’ activities that we saw from the Globe team circa 2003? Of course not.

Instead, mainstream media outlets went out of their way to portray Vigano as a disgruntled conservative angry at Pope Francis’ progressive interpretation of Catholic doctrine. The New York Times headlined, “Vatican Power Struggle Bursts Into Open as Conservatives Pounce.” Their print headline was even worse: “Francis Takes High Road As Conservatives Pounce, Taking Criticisms Public.”

Yes, according to the Times, the story wasn’t the sitting Pope being credibly accused of a sexual abuse cover-up—it was conservatives attacking him for it. The problem of child molestation and sexual abuse of clergy took a back seat to Francis’ leftist politics, as the Times piece made clear in its first paragraph: “Since the start of his papacy, Francis has infuriated Catholic traditionalists as he tries to nurture a more welcoming church and shift it away from culture war issues, whether abortion or homosexuality. ‘Who am I to judge?’ the pope famously said, when asked about gay priests. Just how angry his political and doctrinal enemies are became clear this weekend…”

It wasn’t just the Times. On Wednesday, Reuters headlined, “Defenders rally around pope, fear conservatives escalating war.” On Thursday, Reuters doubled down with this headline: “Conservative media move to front line of battle to undermine Pope Francis.” The Telegraph (U.K.) reported, “Vatican analysts say the attack appears to be part of a concerted effort by conservatives to oust Pope Francis, who they dislike for his relatively liberal views…

[…]The media’s disgraceful attempts to cover for Francis because of their love for his politics merely exposes the actual malign motivations of many in the media: they were happy to expose misconduct and evil inside the Catholic Church when the pope was a conservative; they’re happy to facilitate a cover-up when the pope is a liberal.

As an evangelical conservative Christian, the Bible means more to me than the opinions of any man. The Bible is God speaking to his creatures about what their priorities ought to be. So, as a Bible-believing Christian, I’m primarily concerned about chastity, fidelity, protecting the unborn and promoting natural marriage. I wish we could all agree that these things should be our priorities. People should not be having sex outside of marriage, or cheating on their spouses. Unborn children should not be killed. Young children should grow up in stable homes with their biological mother and father present.

And I also believe in small government and low taxes, because parents need to keep the money they earn, in order to run their families properly. Parents should not be taxed to pay for high energy costs (global warming alarmism causes higher energy costs, for example Germany and Canada) and unskilled immigrants (higher police, education and health care costs, as seen in places like France and the UK). I want strong families where children grow up loved and protected. And I think Catholics should agree with me on this.

Senate Democrats government shutdown puts illegal aliens above our military

Democrats celebrating shutting down the government for illegal aliens
Democrats celebrating shutting down the government for illegal aliens

By now I guess everyone has heard about the Senate Democrats deciding to shut down the government. What’s surprising to me about this is why they are choosing to do it, and what it shows about their priorities. Who are they really working for?

Here’s Genevieve Wood’s article about it at the Daily Signal:

As you may have heard, a government shutdown is looming here in D.C. Many of you out there watching probably think, “So what? That can be a good thing. Less of Washington, fewer bureaucrats telling us what to do and how to spend our money.”  Those are all good points.

But that is not why Democrats are threatening to shut down the government.

Let’s keep in mind this is the same party that is always telling us if we shut down the government, this will be a travesty for millions of Americans, so many government programs and services will be unmet.

But yet they’re still willing to do so. Why is that?

Well, it’s because their liberal base is demanding that in this election year they put the needs and desires of those who are here in this country illegally before anybody else.

So if you’re an American who wants to live in a safe community and wants a safe border, too bad for you. If you’re a man or woman serving in our military, sworn to protect us around the world, well, we’re just not going to get those funds in that the military may need. And if you’re somebody who is not an American citizen but you’re standing in line because you, too, want to have a chance at the American dream and you’re trying to do it the right way? To all of those folks, Democrats are saying, “Get to the back of the line. ”

Democrats don’t just want increased illegal immigration, they want  chain migration, too. When you allow chain migration, you’re not selecting people to come into the country who can speak English, who have college educations, who can perform skills in short supply. Chain migration doesn’t require immigrants to speak English or be able to work. It doesn’t require anything beyond a family connection.

This article from Real Clear Politics has more:

On this week’s Fox News Sunday panel, Heritage Foundation leader Michael Needham clarifies the dispute which led to the government shutdown, explaining that from the start the president has called for an end to chain migration, “this crazy system where people are allowed to bring distant relatives like cousins into the country.”

“This is a shutdown over whether or not we could give amnesty to illegal immigrants who are here, and have chain migration allowing them to bring distant relatives. That’s not going to work out well in November [for Democrats] if they say they are the party in favor of amnesty and distant relatives,” he added.

Countries like Canada and Australia only allow in immigrants who can speak English and who have skills that are in demand, like information technology or medicine. That’s the way immigration should work. We shouldn’t be bringing in people who will cause the rest of us to have to carry them through life. We should be focused on skilled immigrants, but the Democrats are focused on unskilled immigrants and the family members of those unskilled immigrants.

Trump doesn’t intend to negotiate for border wall using DACA as leverage

Donald Trump with some of his supporters
Donald Trump, with some of his brilliant alt-right supporters

The center-left The Hill reports.

Excerpt:

White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters on Tuesday that President Trump would not demand that border wall funding is tied to a legislative replacement for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Speaking at a roundtable event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Short said the administration didn’t want to “bind” itself by making a demand that would likely be a nonstarter for many lawmakers.

“We’re interested in getting border security and the president has made the commitment to the American people that a barrier is important to that security,” Short said. “Whether or not that is part of a DACA equation, or … another legislative vehicle, I don’t want to bind us into a construct that would make the conclusion on DACA impossible.”

There had been speculation that Trump would require any compromise on potential DACA legislation include money for a wall along the southern border.

Trump’s not going to use DACA as leverage to get us the border wall.

Trump has been awful at pressuring lawmakers in both parties into supporting conservative legislation. I can’t think of a single piece of legislation that he has even tried to be persuasive on. It’s the President’s job to drum up support for legislation that he promised during his campaign. He does this by being intelligent, informed and persuasive. Trump had a lot of confident words about his ability to make great deals during the campaign, but so far, we haven’t even seen him try to make a great deal. Everything that requires a legislative solution – from the Obamacare repeal, to the border wall, to the Iran deal, to the debt ceiling – has been a complete failure.

And now the White House is even saying that Trump has always favored amnesty.

This is from the Daily Caller.

Excerpt:

President Donald Trump’s request that Congress protect illegal immigrants is not a change of heart, but something Trump has always supported, according to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.

Trump presented a hard-line immigration policy on the campaign trail and said during an August 2016 campaign speech that “there will be no amnesty.”

“Our message to the world will be this: you cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country,” he stated during the speech.

However, last week President Trump announced that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program will be rescinded in six months and that Congress has until then to “legalize DACA,” which protects roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation.

Asked about Trump’s support of amnesty, Sanders said, “I think the president has spoken out very clearly that he wants us to make this decision based on a variety of factors. But the number one thing is that he wants responsible immigration reform and part of that is including that in the process.”

She went on to say that Trump “always wanted responsible immigration reform.”

Trump did mention immigration reform during that Arizona immigration speech in 2016, but in a much different manner.

“When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, and lower wages,” Trump said in reference to politicians such as Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

800,000 people is a lot of people. Many of those people will use more in social services than they pay in, and some of them will actually be dangerous, as reported in this CNS News story:

Jamiel Shaw II (Dec. 22, 1990 — March 2, 2008) was a promising young football player at Los Angeles High School. He was being prospected by Rutgers University and Stanford University.

On his way home on March 2 after participating in a weekend football training program, Shaw was confronted by two Hispanic men who asked him in which gang was he a member. (Shaw was only several blocks from his home.)

When Shaw did not respond quickly, Pedro Espinoza, an illegal alien gang member and a DREAMer, shot Shaw in the stomach and the face. Shaw died shortly thereafter at a hospital. (Jamiel Shaw Sr. had heard the shots and discovered his dying son on the street.)

Espinoza, who had several previous arrests, including gun charges and an assault on a police officer, was convicted of first degree murder on May 9, 2012.

Wouldn’t it be great if all the people who voted for the DREAM Act were now tried as accessories to murder? I would really like to see that. But even that would not be enough to make up for the loss of a child to a repeat-criminal.

Look, I can admit that Trump made a good decision on the Supreme Court nominee. But he was elected because people thought he would repeal Obamacare and build the wall. We were told that people who had actually performed actions to achieve those ends, like Ted Cruz, were unreliable. Trump was the best candidate, because he was a tough-talking outsider who could make deals. Well, we’re still waiting for him to be persuasive to Congress on legislation. He had a big mouth, but he isn’t able to back it up. There was nothing in his background that demonstrated that he would back it up.

He used to tell us that we’d get tired of all the winning. Maybe so. But first, we have to start winning. Let’s win one time to get the winning started. Build the wall.

Ted Cruz fought Rubio’s amnesty in 2013 and fought Obama’s executive amnesty in 2014

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

Let’s do the 2013 Rubio amnesty first.

The leftist Washington Post reports on how Cruz tried to stop the Rubio amnesty by introducing amendments that would undermine support for the bill, or weaken the bill if it did get passed.

Excerpt:

Cruz has been a staunch opponent of giving a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who entered the United States illegally. In 2013, Cruz introduced five amendments:

  • Cruz 1: To triple the number of Border Patrol agents and quadrupling the equipment along the border.
  • Cruz 2: To deny means-tested government benefits to those who entered illegally.
  • Cruz 3: To strip away the pathway to citizenship.
  • Cruz 4: To expand legal immigration, by increasing employment-based immigration from 140,000 to 1,012,500 per year.
  • Cruz 5: To raise the H-1B high-skilled worker cap from 65,000 visas to 325,000 per year.

Note that “legalizing” someone can mean just giving them a temporary work permit, so that they are in the country legally, but have no permanent right to stay, much less get citizenship. The thing is, it’s not even clear that Cruz would have voted for the bill with his amendments. His goal was to derail the bill by embedding things in it that the supporters did not want. Like the “no path to citizenship” that Rubio wanted. And this is exactly how Democrats saw his amendments.

Here’s what happened:

When pressed about his 2013 statements and the citizenship amendment after the GOP debate, Cruz said: “It’s called calling their bluff.”

And in a Dec. 16, 2015, interview with Bret Baier on Fox News: “You’ve been around Washington long enough. You know how to defeat bad legislation, which is what that amendment did, is it revealed the hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] and the Senate Democrats and the establishment Republicans who were supporting them because they all voted against it.”

[…]Current and former Democratic Senate staffers familiar with the negotiations confirmed to The Fact Checker that Cruz’s bill was, indeed, viewed as a poison pill in 2013. Consider the impact some of his amendments would have had on the fragile agreements the coalition negotiated:

  • Tripling Border Patrol agents: The Senate ultimately approved an amendment to double the number of Border Patrol agents. But tripling the number would’ve gone too far and lost the support of some immigration groups, which believed an even bigger increase would be badly received by border communities and the public.
  • Expanding legal immigration: Such a dramatic increase in employment-based immigration and H-1B visas went far beyond the coalition’s negotiated cap at 65,000. As The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported, Democrats, Republicans and their allies in the labor movement and corporate America worked for months to agree on this number, which was backed by the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A slight increase or decrease would have jeopardized support from either the AFL-CIO or the Chamber of Commerce; Cruz’s proposal was a 400 percent increase from the negotiated cap.
  • Removing pathway to citizenship: This was the major negotiation point for the Gang of Eight, and would have killed the bill.

In reference to the citizenship amendment, then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said during the 2013 hearing: “My concern with this, I feel it would virtually gut the bill … and gut what has been a very careful balance by Republicans and Democrats and the sponsors of it.”

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a Gang of Eight Democrat, echoed the concern at the hearing: “If we do not have a path to citizenship, there is no reform, many of us feel. That is a bottom line here.” The Gang of Eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sided with Democrats in rejecting this amendment.

In a statement to The Fact Checker, Schumer confirmed Cruz’s bill was viewed as a poison pill: “This was an attempt to kill the bill, and there was no doubt at the time that Senator Cruz knew it would do exactly that.”

This is what Marco Rubio is getting angry with Cruz about in the debates. Cruz introduced 5 amendments meant to destroy the agreement among supporters of the bill. And the bill died. Rubio actually voted against Cruz’s amendment that would have taken citizenship off the table. He also opposed poison pill amendments by amnesty opponents Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions.

Conservative Mark Levin recently interviewed Jeff Sessions about Ted Cruz’s role in the battle over amnesty, and you can read about it here on the Daily Wire.

The second amnesty battle

Rubio’s amnesty was defeated in 2013, but there was another amnesty to come in 2014. This time, from the pen of Barack Obama.

The Blaze reports:

On Saturday night, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) won a battle, but not the war, against President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration.

Cruz led the fight to force a Senate vote on Obama’s immigration plans, as a condition of approving a massive, $1.1 trillion spending bill for 2015. He was able to make that vote happen by arguing that the spending bill violated the Constitution because it would fund Obama’s plan — a plan Cruz and other Republicans say is illegal because it rewrites immigration law without any input from Congress.

“Tonight is the first opportunity that Congress has to express its disapproval,” Cruz said late Saturday of Obama’s immigration plan.

Cruz lost the vote, as expected in a Senate that is still controlled by Democrats for a few more weeks. But Cruz’s tactics — which forced the Senate to work unexpectedly late into Saturday night — also drew criticism from Republicans, and several GOP senators vote against Cruz.

In the final vote, the Senate decided 22-74 against Cruz — less than half of the Senate’s 45 Republicans voted with Cruz.

[…]Cruz raised his constitutional argument against the bill on Friday night, a move that surprised both Republicans and Democrats and forced the Senate back into the office for a rare Saturday session. After several hours of negotiating, Democrats finally agreed to give Cruz his vote.

The vote itself was a victory — many Republicans have been begging for either the House or Senate to go on the record about Obama’s unilateral immigration decision.

This is why Cruz has few friends in the Senate. It’s not because he is a mean person, it’s because he fights hard for what is right. And few stand with him.

Cruz keeps telling the truth, and people keep calling him a liar for citing their actual words and actions:

It’s important to understand that on Washington, most of the politicians in both parties want amnesty. And that’s why they hate Cruz so much. It’s not his personality, it’s his conservatism.