There's a Just Judge Who Will Right All Wrongs!

Not long ago I wrote a post titled, Who's Telling the Truth? about the case of Fr. Gordon MacRae. I wrote the post after several comments from an anonymous reader insisting on Father's guilt based primarily on the New Hampshire AG report, a tainted source if there ever was one.

One of the points my reader stressed over and over was that Father pleaded guilty to several charges. I decided to reread Dorothy Rabinowitz's article, The Trials of Fr. MacRae, which contained this paragraph about the "guilty pleas.":

Still, the jury trial would end with a conviction in September 1994, and a sentence equivalent to a life term handed down by Judge Arthur Brennan. That would not be all. The state threatened a new prosecution on additional charges unless the priest pleaded guilty to those, in exchange for no added prison time. Without funds and unable to hire a new lawyer, already facing a crushing sentence and certain, given the climate in which he would face a second trial, that he could only be convicted, Father MacRae accepted the deal.

Who's Telling the Truth?

A reader sent me several comments about Fr. Gordon MacRae's case (which I did not post) claiming I'm withholding information and I should let readers decide for themselves about his guilt or innocence. So I'm offering two pieces: the Attorney General's report from New Hampshire against Fr. MacRae and Fr. MacRae's description of the proceedings and the accusations against him. (Links below.) 

There are, in fact, hundreds of articles about the case. I've read a good many. I'll be completely transparent. I believe Fr. MacRae was railroaded, not only by prosecutors, but by psychologists, false witnesses, and even representatives of the church. Having said that, it's hard to know the truth of any allegation when there are no witnesses to the alleged crime and most of the evidence is "he said; she said". Who's telling the truth?

Monday of Holy Week: Are You a Christian?

Only Christians celebrate Holy Week, but is everyone who celebrates Holy Week really a Christian? I thought about that while reading a column by Msgr. Charles Pope in The Wanderer, Be Different, Be a Christian. I generally read Msgr. Pope's weekly article because he offers insightful and challenging thoughts that make me think. This particular column began:

Are you a Christian? Before you answer, consider these other questions: Do you love your enemy? Do you do good to them who hate you? The honest answers to these questions are at the very heart of Christianity and represent what distinguishes a Christian from others.

Champion of Child Killing Dies and Biden Pardons His Criminal Cronies

Cecile Richards, former head of Planned Parenthood, died this morning after battling an  aggressive brain cancer. During her 12-year tenure at PP, she oversaw nearly four million executions of babies in the womb. While the murder-for-hire organization operates in supposedly sterile rooms and their killers dress in white lab coats, they are as efficiently deadly as Mafia hit men. The media is celebrating her legacy of death. How did the court of heaven react today?

Justice Denied! When Courts Are Corrupted

Jesus before Caiphas: the Illegal Trial and Sentence

Let's present a hypothetical trial situation. You're selected for a jury and seated. In your lap is your notebook and pen because you are determined to be a responsible citizen who listens carefully and judges fairly. (Yes, you are called to judge the facts and conclude whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.)

Justice in this Country under the Corrupt Democrats is Dead!

89-year-old death camp survivor, 6 other pro-lifers face 10+ years in prison on FACE Act charges

How many January 6ers still languish in prison without trial? How many violent criminals are released on our streets without even paying bail under the corrupt system of injustice instituted by the Democrats? How many Antifa and BLM rioters who injured police and destroyed over a billion dollars worth of property set one toe in jail?

If you want to live in a corrupt, Democrat tyranny just vote for Harris/Walz. 

Sunday Meditation: Why do the Evil Prosper?

Do you ever ask why the evil prosper?

Let Justice Roll Down

Falsely Accused priest wins jury damages and returns to ministry.

I follow Fr. Gordon MacRae's blog, Beyond These Stone Walls. Fr. MacRae refused to take a plea deal when he was falsely accused of sex abuse of a minor. Instead of a year in prison, the bribe if he pled guilty (Think of the January 6ers.), he has lived behind bars since 1994 continuing to profess his innocence. His accuser received $200,000; Fr. MacRae continues to dwell in the U.S. gulag despite lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the "victim's" story. You can read about Father's ordeal here.

His post today is about another falsely accused priest, Fr. William Graham, who was finally exonerated after eight long years of being treated by his spiritual father and his spiritual brothers like a pariah: removed from active ministry, sent into exile, no word of support or comfort. In a recent homily he shared some of what he experienced:

Need a Laugh? Read about This Crime-Fighting Nun.

I nominate  Sister Johnice Rzadkiewicz, to head the Department of Justice!

After Thieves Try to Rob “God’s Property” – Video Catches a 76-Year-Old Nun Yanking their Ladder, Leaving them Stranded

Dems Hate the Rule of Law! Their Reaction to the Rittenhouse Verdict Just Proves It!

Tucker will interview Kyle Rittenhouse tonight. 

Joe Biden is telling people to "protest peacefully" against the Rittenhouse verdict. (Isn't that what President Trump called for last January?) 

New York Democrat Congressman Jerry Nadler is calling for a review of the verdict by the corrupt DOJ. He calls the verdict a "miscarriage of justice" that endangers people engaged in their First Amendment right to protest. 

Pope Francis Papacy Timeline 2015

Mercy and compassion are used to
justify undermining God's truth and justice.

To see previous years go here.

The beat goes on in 2015 as Pope Francis continues undermining the faith. This will be an important year particularly because of the document Laudato Si on the environment and the second synod on the family which will be used as references to support heterodox interpretations later, particularly in preparation for the Amazon Synod.

January 12 - 19: Apostolic Visit to Sri Lanka and the Philippines. The press conference on the way home from this papal visit was, to say the least, interesting. It gave the pope one more opportunity to put his foot in his mouth when he said Christians didn't need to act like rabbits. He talked about "responsible parenthood" in a way that implied small families. He also said some good things. Unfortunately, we're used to him saying some good things while he acts in a way that undermines his words. See more here.

Cry, Baby, Cry: The Reason John Podesta Came Out to Concede

It wasn't supposed to end this way!

What We Know About Hillary Weeping 

After reading the link above, I can honestly say, this is exactly why I would never vote for a woman for president.  We cry.  Inconsolably.  EVEN the toughest women among us and apparently Hillary is no exception. 

Men also cry, but in almost every case it is when the love in their heart overflows, not when they are disappointed or unable to cope.  Almost never does it prevent them from doing what must be done when they are called to act.  They are not disabled by their tears, they are, in fact, often inspired by them.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: What a Supreme Court Justice Should NEVER Be!

Ginsburg and her "dissent collar"

Justice is supposed to be blind. Lady Justice is always portrayed with a blindfold to indicate that she is impartial, unmoved by appearances. But clearly, some judges (like journalists who are supposed to report the news not make it or spin it) just can't resist legislating from the bench and making their opinions known in inappropriate circumstances. Ginsburg should know better at her age, but, well, she doesn't.

The George Zimmerman Show Trial

The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy is drawing to a conclusion, but it will never be ended and there will be no "winners." If George Zimmerman goes free, as he should since the prosecution never presented a case that upholds second degree murder (or even the manslaughter charge thrown in at the last moment), there are likely to be riots. A community already suffering from the sad events of that fateful night will be further ravaged. If Zimmerman is found guilty, it will be a real perversion of justice since all of the evidence supports Zimmerman's story that he was attacked and in fear for his life when he shot Martin. But I can't imagine that he doesn't wish with all his heart that somebody else was patrolling the community for Neighborhood Watch that night.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a well-known liberal,

Who's Next for the Supreme Court? Another Judicial Activist for Sure!

Only a hundred days in office and already President Obama has the opportunity to push the Supreme Court even further into judicial activism. When he announced David Souter's retirement today and talked about his replacement, he said not one word about looking for judges who will uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. In fact, he said just the opposite:

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

Uh, excuse me, an independent mind? Exactly what does that mean?

The President makes the answer abundantly clear in his next statement that justice is not about some "abstract legal theory" and "footnote[s] in a case book." Consider that the "abstract legal theory" he's talking about is the U.S. Constitution which many liberals believe is out of date and should be scrapped. The "footnotes in a case book" mean legal precendents that illustrate what the Framers intended indicating how the Constitution should be interpreted. (Remember, the role of the court is not to make law; that's the job of the legislative branch.) So what does Obama want to take the place of the Constitution and the rule of law? It's pretty easy to see from all his executive orders and other actions by-passing the legislature: individual interpretation made up out of thin air.

That is exactly what happened on the Supreme Court in the the 1962 Engel vs. Vitale case that threw prayer out of the public schools. The prayer beginning the day was generic and non-coercive. (“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”) It was hardly the "establishment of religion" forbidden by the Constitution. (The Framers included the "establishment clause" to prevent a state religion like that in England which caused so much persecution under King Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc.)

What is particularly noteworthy about Engel vs. Vitale is that the decision, written by Hugo Black for the majority, cited NOT ONE LEGAL CASE PRECEDENT. There weren't any. Previous courts had upheld the constitutionality of prayer and religious activity as long as it did not establish a state religion.

So if the Constitution doesn't rule on an Obama court what will?

Take him at his word. He says he will name justices who consider things like people making a living and caring for their families, and "feeling welcome" in their own country, etc. Read between the lines. He seems to be suggesting that the court should judge cases according to who the defendants and plaintiffs are and what the desired outcome is. (That's how Roe v. Wade came about with its justification in the "right to privacy" which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. Justice Harry Blackmun, with the help of his colleague William Brennan, a so-called Catholic, found it in the "penumbra," the halo glow around the moon. Seems appropriate since the ruling was moon-batty.)

Under Obama, expect Lady Justice to be stripped of her blindfold allowing her to see which side is politically correct so she can rule accordingly. Her scales will be tipped by weighted balances that support abortion, same-sex marriage, and other liberal sacred cows.

Activist courts are not new. The Federal Judiciary has been making laws for years and the Supreme Court has vacillated according to the balance of strict constructionists vs. loosy-goosy liberals who make things up as they go along. Souter was a liberal. His replacement by another liberal will maintain the status quo even though we can expect an Obama appointment to be a radical leftist. Since liberalism rules the Senate, there is no brake to the Obama juggarnaut. The balance of the court will change drastically when a conservative whose legal decisions are formed according to the Constitution retires. Then, look out!

No one wants to play a game of Blind Man's Buff when the person in the blindfold cheats. Unfortunately, the President seems intent on replacing Lady Justice with a strumpet.

A Just Judge

A lot of judges in America are like the unjust judge of scripture who rules capriciously and only give the widow justice because he's afraid she will finally do something to injure him. So it's refreshing when you find a judge who believes in the rule of law and recognizes the danger to a country when the law is abused. If you aren't familiar with Judge Andrew Napolitano read this interview with him. Not only will you find out quite a lot about this good and decent man, but you'll also learn a lot about how our out-of-control law enforcement uses immoral means to trap and convict people. Is it any wonder that pro-lifers find themselves arrested for standing on public sidewalks and then the officers leaf through the statutes looking for something to pin on them?

And speaking of pro-lifers, here's what the judge says about abortion.

Reason: You said abortion is murder. Should it be regulated by the state or should it be prohibited by the state?

Napolitano: Absolutely it should be prohibited, just the way all unjust killings are prohibited.

Reason: Should doctors go to prison as murderers?

Napolitano: Yes.

Reason: First-degree murder?

Napolitano: Yes.

Reason: Should they get the death penalty--

Napolitano: I don't believe that the state has the moral authority to execute, so I don't believe in the death penalty.

Reason: But you do think that doctors who perform abortions should be put in jail as murderers? Every bit as much as Scott Peterson?

Napolitano: Yes. By a state government, not by the federal government, because the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to prosecute murderers. Roe v. Wade is wrong because there's isn't a scintilla in the Constitution or its history to justify federal legislation on abortion. It would then be up to the state of Kansas to allow it and Pennsylvania not to allow it.

While I disagree with the judge that any state has the moral authority to allow abortion, if Roe v. Wade had not passed abortion would probably be outlawed today. States that had permitted it were recriminalizing it when Roe came down.

Wouldn't you love to see this man on the Supreme Court? Sure won't happen on Obama's watch. But keep praying -- you never know what prayer can bring about.