Church Militant The Vortex Feed

TRANSCRIPT

I'm coming to you from our Fall Retreat at Sea, where our theme is "Catholics were here first" — meaning the New World — specifically, the lands that eventually became the United States.

However, despite the arrival of both Spanish and French Catholic explorers at roughly the same time, it was the British Protestants that prevailed in overrunning the eastern seaboard and eventually the continent. Why?

Catholics were here almost 100 years earlier, so you'd think that with a gigantic head start like that the Protestants wouldn't have stood a chance. The answer lies in the history of the circumstances.

Catholic explorers were mostly not interested in establishing colonies but rather in enriching the coffers of their respective monarchies and wealthy merchants who had invested in their explorations.

On the other hand, the Protestants were not as much interested in the potential wealth but in establishing colonies where they could escape what they saw as religious persecution.

The Catholic explorers came here to get rich. The Protestants came here to start a new life.

With the exception of the Irish, who were persecuted violently by the British realm, there were no other Catholic populations looking to escape tyranny — at the time, at least. There were a smattering of Catholic settlements here and there, most notably St. Augustine in Florida, but these were far apart and few in between.

Additionally, the Catholic explorers brought with them missionaries who brought the gospel to the New World, and their efforts were concentrated on converting the native populations — not building settlements for migrants from Europe.

Further, many of the New World territories that Catholic explorers encountered were in Florida and further south — the Caribbean islands, Mexico and even South America. All of that was thanks to the Spanish. 

With the exception of the very Deep South — Lousiana, most notably — the French largely confined their expeditions to the north and lands in modern-day Canada as well as the northern remote parts of the present-day United States (Maine, for example). It was for this reason that the French and British fought so much in the disputed territories and gave way to famous battles and wars.

That was from the mid-to-late 1500s until the mid-1700s and set the stage for major military clashes down the road with the British colonists. The British colonists were not a force, so to speak, in the South — certainly not to the same degree and, as a result, had far fewer skirmishes with the Spanish.

So a large swath of North America was "Catholic," a hundred years before the British even largely knew about the New World.

Likewise, even when some earlier 16th-century British explorations did happen, they were largely in search of the famed Northwest Passage, a route they were certain would go across the continent and emerge in the Pacific. For the record, it was not discovered until the early 20th century, but it passes through the Arctic Circle.

The French and British explorations then were centered on commerce, and their efforts were concentrated in the northern regions of the continent. The Spanish had the same motivations but focused their efforts on the southern regions and even further south.

Establishing settlements and colonies was not the priority; there hadn't been a driving need. After all, why would citizens in Europe feel a need to give up the relative comfort and peace they enjoyed at home and hop on a ship to sail across the ocean and face danger and uncertainty without a major motivator?

For the time, the desire for wealth and return on investment would have to suffice. And so it did for roughly a century from the time Columbus landed. However, religious strife in England produced the needed motivation, and in 1620, about 100 passengers and 30 crew jumped on the Mayflower. A good number died on the voyage, and those who survived and landed in Plymouth still had to face the winter.

By the time winter had passed, that first group of about 130 had dwindled to barely 50 owing to starvation and disease. It was a very inauspicious beginning.

It was not the first colony established by the English; that was Jamestown in 1607. But it was the first that rejected the Church of England, which was way too Catholic for these Pilgrims.

So the important part to note is that there were two types (or categories) of English settlements in the New England area, and both rejected the pope and the authority of the Church.

But one group, the Puritans — who settled in Massachusetts Bay a handful of years later and who were OK with the Church of England — wanted it to be purified of Catholic remnants. Hence the name "Puritans."

The other group, the Pilgrims, wanted nothing to do with the established English church and set off to forge their own worship. They eventually transformed into Congregationalists. As the so-called Reformation barely turned 100, it was the beginning of a very uneasy relationship among Protestants in the New World.

What it would mean for Catholics coming here, however, would eventually prove to be tragic.

TRANSCRIPT

There is a pretty close connection between the MAGA movement and what might also be termed "Make Catholicism Great Again."

While the latter is certainly not a movement as typically understood, it is a real thing among many faithful Catholics. There exists an overlap — the famous Venn diagram perspective, where a certain relationship exists when overlapping concerns are shared.

Obviously, MAGA and MCGA do not share everything; if they did, they would be identical, not just overlapping. That said, the overlap is not insignificant.

And if you doubt that, just ask Biden's FBI why they infiltrated catholic parishes around the country, lying to Congress that they had not, and then cast their actions as monitoring supposed domestic terror and violence threats, the same charges they hurl at MAGA types.

Also if you doubt this, just check with the Vatican-approved journal that published an article in 2017 saying essentially the exact same thing, warning the world that conservative pro-Trump Catholics are a "threat."

What do both of these reports have in common? What's their overlap?

Easy. Church Militant.

The Vatican-approved document pointed to Church Militant by name, long before Biden's corrupt FBI did. Likewise, the FBI report also did, right there on page four.

What on earth would both the Vatican and the FBI see in this little ol' apostolate that they would each name us so explicitly and clearly?

Again, simple.

They understand that we understand the intimate link between the Catholic Church and America. Forces in each organization want both the Church and the republic transformed, paved over, to make way for worldwide communism, trafficking today under the euphemism of "globalism."

However you slice it and dice it, it's all about world domination. Of course it is. What else would it be about?

From the very beginning of all this, the only Catholic apostolate that got all this was us, here at Church Militant. Wicked government and Church forces identified the work we do and singled it out especially, to draw attention to us to target us.

While certainly imperfect as a political movement (but then again, which one is perfect?) MAGA touches on some of the very same themes as Catholic social teaching. And Catholic social teaching is not to be confused with the Marxists in the Church who never stop blabbing on about social justice.

Authentic Catholic social teaching isn't centrally focused on social justice. Idolization of the latter is communist and Saul Alinsky–inspired.

The other is Christ-focused and promoted by saints. They have nothing in common at all, except the use of the word "social." And that's where it ends.

Church Militant has been hunting and tracking this communist dog, in and out of the Church, for going on a decade, even when most others in the Catholic world didn't know it or didn't think it was important enough.

In the spiritual realm, Satan is the enemy. In the temporal realm, communism is his weapon of choice, in and out of the Church.

So we'd like to ask you to express your support for our longstanding work, as well as help us continue fighting this evil, by making a donation to our anti-communist campaign which you can do by just clicking on the provided link.

Remember as you are thinking about that, only Church Militant has been expressly named by nefarious forces in the Vatican as well as called out by the FBI. Just us.

We know. They know we know. And we know they know we know. Please support our vital work pushing back against communism, both in the Church and America.

There's quite the overlap here.

TRANSCRIPT

In order for communism to succeed in the West, a massive deconstruction, a demolishing of the culture, would have to occur. However, the commies were not operating in a vacuum, and they knew it. You can't just blow into town and start uprooting everything.

Perhaps a better way to visualize this would be to think in terms of tipping the scales. When one side is greatly lower, you can get the scales to tip by either just adding more weight to the other side or slowly adding more weight while at the same time subtracting weight from the opposite side.

Of course, the second method requires more time and patience and planning, but, at the end, it is the more effective way to actually flip the scales. This was the plan the communists put into effect. 

Ultimately, it was all about transforming society slowly, methodically and extremely effectively, so that as one generation gave way to the next, the transformation would hardly be noticeable. It was an extremely ambitious and, most importantly, wide-ranging strategy, one that required capturing various institutions of society at approximately the same time.

If you think in terms of, say, planning a big meal with all sorts of dishes, you need to make sure that the timing is right — all the food has to hit the table at the same time.

Because they are different dishes, some require much advance prep work; others, not as much. But they all need to come off the stove and out of the oven at the same instant. Well, the same is true of the commie plan to undermine the culture. 

What all the institutions actually had in common was their at least tacit acceptance of Christian principles (and, specifically, Catholic principles) on how a well-ordered society should run and look.

Gramsci clashed with Joseph Stalin on the issue of what was the greater challenge to creating the "workers' paradise," capitalism or the Catholic Church. For Gramsci, it was clear: Catholicism, because he understood the vital knitting together of the other institutions relied on the underlying view of man promoted and taught by the Church.

The anthropology of Catholicism (who is man and what is his purpose, and what flows from those answers) is the canvas upon which a society is painted. The texture of the painting's canvas, the nap, the material — all give a certain view of the final art.

So too with the Church, which, like it or not, even here in Protestant America, set the tone for everything else.

Stalin's method of installing communism was much more forceful: violence, rebellion, suppression, mass murders — ultimately, ruling through fear. It would produce immediate results if successful, enslaving many nations. But the question of its staying power, that was indeed a question.

Stalin's new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, did indeed steamroll its way through much of the 20th century, asserting its dominance on hundreds of millions behind the Iron Curtain, threatening world peace almost continuously for roughly 40 years. But then it simply vanished, almost overnight.

On Christmas night, 1991, president of the Soviet Union (which had already largely disintegrated) Mikhail Gorbachev gave a 10-minute resignation speech.

Moments later, the hammer and sickle Soviet communist flag, which had flown there for 70 years, was lowered, and the new Russian flag was raised. In the run-up to that breathless moment, almost two years earlier, in what would have formerly been understood as impossible, Gorbachev went to the Vatican, hat in hand, and posed with Pope John Paul for a photo op. The world was stunned.

The leader of godless atheism who had tortured and murdered countless Catholics behind that Iron Curtain, including many of John Paul's closest friends, was now standing there at the throne of Peter, hoping to impress Western bankers, from whom he needed much financing, that things had indeed changed in the Kremlin.

That scene in December 1989, followed two years later by the flag lowering over the Kremlin in December 1991, proved that Gramsci has been correct. No empire ruled by fear and oppression can last indefinitely. The foundational philosophy needs to be transformed, not thrown into camps and murdered.

Human bodies could be crushed, yes — but human nature cannot. But what human nature can be is manipulated and transformed, twisted further. Gramsci got it.

The institution that needed to be attacked and transformed was the Catholic Church, because it pointed to the heights, directed human nature to its greater end, and it is that foundation, with its appeals to justice and kindness and charity, that all society was built upon.

The Church preached that to the barbarians more than a thousand years earlier and had never stopped. Those preachings and teachings were the very bedrock of the West, and as long as the institution which kept them in place was itself in place, communism didn't stand a chance, except for a momentary period of violence and oppression that could not last.

Key to the advancement of communism would be the undermining of Catholicism because of its complete and total embrace and upholding of Christianity. Protestantism didn't pose a threat to communism because large portions had already abandoned bedrock principles regarding human nature. 

Gramsci proves the point that the battle is between Catholicism and atheism, which today thrives in communism.

TRANSCRIPT

It all began very slowly at first, almost completely out of sight, in fact. U.S. communism did not advertise itself as that, but rather as socialism. Truth be told, with the exception of some economic points of view, the two are essentially the same.

"Communism" is just the name given to the movement later. It began as "socialism." And just as it was beginning here in the United States in the late 1800s, so too was Pope Leo XIII condemning it, since it had already gained a strong foothold in Europe.

Socialism, by its very name, presents itself as the answer to society's woes, and communism has had a place in America since the satanic social dogma was conjured up.

Karl Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels presented their worldview of the "haves" pitted against the "have nots," and cleverly peppered their propaganda into printing presses at the New York Daily Tribune in the early 1850s.

And in Europe where there was not really that much of a middle class, the "rich versus the poor" message played much better there.

In the United States, however, where a middle class was developing rapidly, it was a harder sell. So the socialists associated themselves with the "worker" and pushed for unions, trying to create a wedge between rich and poor.

They called it "labor" and "management." While some strides were made on behalf of workers, the desired class warfare never really materialized, and the socialist political party never really was able to establish itself as a standalone party.

In 1919, Lenin formed an organization called the Communist International and began funding U.S. operations. For about the next four or five years, federal and state authorities, recognizing a threat, began a crackdown on the communist agitators, many of whom were foreign-born.

After the first 40 or so years of communism/socialism in the United States, it was clear that the means for spreading the ideology in Europe were not really going to work here. So after much infighting and factioning among the commies, it became clear to them that a direct challenge to government and institutions needed to be abandoned in favor of a much more subversive nature.

The downside? It would take generations for the plan to be successful and the American communists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries would not live to see it succeed. The upside? The control of America could be achieved through much more cunning maneuvers.

So taking one for the team, so to speak, the fifth-column communists began their "long march through the institutions," willing to die without seeing the fruits of their efforts. In choosing this path, as opposed to direct confrontation, they were following the blueprint laid out and insisted on by Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci.

He correctly understood that the West had been built up on the theological principles of Catholicism and then the spillover of those principles, genuine human rights (the right to private property, for example, but considerably more). It would have to be a long, slow course of destruction the commies would have to set upon to undo more than a thousand years of Christendom.

The goal, as it had been in the revolution, was to seize control of the government. Armed rebellion and violence had been the weapon of choice in Russia. In America, it would have to be propaganda — slowly poisoning the American mind and intellect so that a major political party could be seized.

So agents and double agents, spies, infected the U.S. government and agencies, a kind of precursor to the Obama–Biden years where they could be much more open, but not yet fully. Since the war of haves and have nots was their classic strategy, it was a very small shift to create a party that would present itself as the protector of victims.

Since the Democrats had portrayed themselves as fighting for the little man, it made perfect sense to fidget with the language a bit and switch to fighting for "victims"; it was an easy transition.

Victimhood as a political strategy was born, casting the little man as the underdog, the victim. After all, America loves a good underdog story.

From henceforth then, Democrats wouldn't fight for the poor; they would fight for "victims" — "victims" who are denied their rights to abortion, contraception, unlimited divorce, gay marriage, student loans being canceled, government handouts, Obama phones, and on and on, you name it.

Give enough people what they want — materially, sexually, emotionally — and they will vote you into power. But that was the end game. The first step would be to undo centuries of tradition and cultural understanding of how society works.

That work slowly began in the 1920s and '30s as various seeds were being planted in universities, seeds that would grow to full flowering within two to three generations.

Some of these ideas, with a theological twist, were also being planted simultaneously in Catholic seminaries and religious houses.

More on that this week.

TRANSCRIPT

In order to be a leader, you have to have the trait of connecting the dots, of seeing the interconnection between things. Wisdom, after all, is that very thing: seeing how various things — some clear, others not so clear — actually align with each other and are all part of the so-called big picture.

So for the usual Joe Six Pack, there are all sorts of things just "happening."

And yes, while it's true, at least in the natural order, that many things just "happen" (car accidents, losing your keys, burning your dinner), there are also other things that are definitely related. And in this area, the discerning mind will observe a critical difference.

Some related things are obviously related. Television ad revenue, for example, relates directly to how many people watch a given show. But others are not so obvious, at least at first. For example, the "coincidences" in the advancement of communism (yeah around the world sure but, most importantly, right here in the United States).

Since the Russian Revolution, it has been well understood by the commies that the West was the enemy, with its foundational Catholic principles. The conclusion of World War II catapulted the United States into the position of sole world power, and with that position came the enmity of the Soviet Union.

We had the bomb. They did not. End of story. As long as we enjoyed military superiority, their world domination plans had to be put on hold. So they stole the secrets to the bomb, made their own, and thus began the nuclear arms race and the Cold War.

Once military parity had been achieved, things quickly got back on track for the Kremlin. Proxy wars were fought all over the globe for the next 40 years.

But what many Americans failed to get is that some of those proxy wars were actually being fought on U.S. soil in our institutions. The courts, politics, universities, media, religion, and so forth. And here is where the connecting of the dots needs to occur, and, sadly, for many, still hasn't. 

In order to gain absolute control over America and shatter the West, communism would ultimately have to gain control over a major American political party. The Democrats had always styled themselves as being for the "little man," which did have some element of truth to it back in the day, way back in the day.

But as Ronald Reagan so famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." And left America as well, as America had largely understood itself, anyway.

The Soviet Union collapsing was not the end of communism, although practically everyone in the West viewed it that way. It was nothing more than the virus killing the host organism, but not before having infected the West, which now too is being killed.

It was the institutions that were infected, slowly and unnoticeably at first, barely perceptible, like how many cancers just creep up on people, initially. Getting control of the institutions, especially media and universities, meant getting control of the average person's mind and reorienting their thinking, with a very heavy concentration on young minds, more susceptible to the propaganda because of their lack of worldly experience.

Young people can always be fooled with appeals to emotion (heck, a lot of older people can for that fact, especially boomers, who set the whole paradigm in motion).

And when enough young people, who are always in the process of growing up and becoming the next generations, can be persuaded that the past is bad, then the commies have paved the way for a takeover of a political party.

It was the combo of hearing it in school and it being reinforced in media that convinced so many former young people, now boomers, to throw off the old.

This week, we will be highlighting the conversion of the American Republic to the People's Republic of America and how media, education and religion played such a vital role, and still do, in bringing about the collapse.

It's an extremely clever and high-tech conquest of our country. Will you stand for it?

TRANSCRIPT

Is Jorge Bergoglio actually the pope? No, of course not, we're told. He's a "heretic." He's a "false prophet." He's even the "anti-Christ." Take your pick — but whatever of those he is, he is absolutely "not the pope."

Those are the mad ramblings of various Catholics, laity and clergy alike, who have succumbed to the temporary applause of Catholics looking for a quick answer to a centuries-old problem. And that's just the public dynamic. 

There are quite a few other Catholic internet figures who run websites and "news" organizations who do believe all that — privately — and use their public influence to promote those ideas through their platforms, but don't have the courage to come right out and say it because they are afraid it will impact business. They make the bombs and let others throw them. Cowards.

Frankly, in some ways, they're even worse than the public big mouths, because they can do even more damage than the bomb throwers, which is the point of their sneakiness.

But for the moment, let's talk about the bomb throwers and their position that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope. This "he is not the pope" argument is specious because of all the other much bigger problems that arise.

If he isn't, then who is? If there isn't a pope right now, then we are all sedevacantists, which opens up a whole other can of worms. Remember, there are "Catholic" nut jobs who say Benedict was not the pope, nor John Paul, nor Paul VI. So why not say that with Francis?

If he isn't now, was he ever? Or did he just stop being pope sometime after the conclave? Even the self-anointed defenders of the faith crowd can't agree on that.

If the conclave was invalid, why haven't any cardinals (Burke, Müller) who were in the conclave said it was invalid? Are they stupid and were duped, or weak, or cowards, or complicit — or are they actually cleverly disguised front men for Freemasonry posing as conservatives just to arrive at this point in time and help usher in the anti-church with its false prophet anti-pope?

If you're going to say the conclave was rigged, then those are all fair questions because one of those positions is right.

If he was once upon a time the pope, then when did he stop being pope? And who gets to decide that? Based on what? How do we know that person is right? How is disagreement over the question of when he stopped being pope resolved?

And, moving forward, what about the cardinals he's appointed? Are all of them invalid because he was never the pope, or just some, because he stopped being pope at some point in his pontificate?

Who gets to decide which cardinals are invalid (based on the moment he stopped being the pope)? Priests on the stump who don't even correctly pronounce his name?

Because, after all, if a priest or layman can declare a man not the pope, it's small potatoes to declare a cardinal is invalid and not really a cardinal. When those cardinals go into conclave, how would anyone ever know how they voted for the next pope? So would the next pope, then in fact, be the next pope?

And even more, how would there ever be the "next pope" ever again? Is a man elected by phony cardinals appointed by a prior phony pope actually the pope? This "Bergoglio is not the pope" blather is at the very least intellectually wanting, but in either case, it is not for priests and laity to declare.

Shut up.

Please, just shut up and stay in your lane. If a pride-riddled priest or layman publicly goes about declaring that, souls of weak faith could be harmed or scandalized. They leave (or don't convert to) the Faith because of those big mouths, whose position, again, is drastically wanting intellectually, but does gets lots of clicks. It's not thought out and it harms souls and they possess zero authority or competence to say it. That ain't gonna play well at their personal judgments.

To stand there before the King and have to explain how you got out of your lane and drove souls out of the Church? On the one hand, they justify their actions by declaring it's for the good of souls. On the other hand, they are damaging souls.

Just because a man has letters after his name or a collar around his neck doesn't make him right. The truth of his arguments makes him right — or wrong.

And when a person like that is swept up in wild applause which fuels his pride and just keeps ratcheting up the charge with increasing disregard for its spiritually disastrous consequences, such a man needs to be put in check.

There are plenty of candidates out there for anti-Christ. But a man making such a declaration about Bergoglio is the son of Satan. What possible good is accomplished by insisting on something the person has no jurisdictional authority to declare?

What, for example, if the next conclave were to elect Cardinal Müller? Given the position that some nutty priest can declare a man to be not the pope, what would prevent James Martin from declaring Müller not the pope and then starting to make videos and speaking at conferences as though it is a fact?

Likewise, those attention-getting videos and conferences and interviews and articles and position papers have the effect of destroying the good work of those trying to steer a middle way through the carnage and help souls, not scandalize them.

Declaring Bergoglio the anti-Christ is going to get many more clicks (which actually seems to be the very point) than the authentic Catholic response, which is to fight the effects of malformation and leave the heretics ultimately to the judgment of God.

Fight their crap, absolutely. Expose every last bit of it. But leave their souls to God. It is still His Church after all. And a final point, if a priest, say, gets kicked out of the priesthood for all this and then declares himself a victim and the Church wrong, then what?

By the way, we've been down this road 500 years ago with Martin Luther, whose chief sin was not his "teachings," but his denial of the authority of the Church, corrupt as its leaders were.

It's very likely such a priest, convinced of his own righteousness, would then try to convince people to leave and start attending a schismatic Church, which he would have joined. Don't follow him out of the Church. He may have made his own bed, but you don't have to lie in it.

Bergoglio is the pope, like it or not.

If some future pope, who is the only authority who can do so, declares he was in fact an anti-pope, then we can begin to look at all those other questions, providing that none of Bergoglio's cardinals voted for that future pope, which, following the logic here, would make him an anti-pope.

See the shipwreck that develops here.

Today's Vortex features Michael's Sept. 12 interview with World Tribune columnist Joe Schaeffer, who is blowing the whistle on Catholic NGOs supporting a globalist agenda.

TRANSCRIPT

In the past two or three months, which also happens to coincide with the Washington, D.C., press conference sponsored by the Deposit of Faith Coalition (of which Church Militant is a part), the conservative media spotlight is now shining ever more brightly on the U.S. bishops and their role in the exploitation of minors at the border.

For Catholics who understand, exploiting minors is something the U.S. hierarchy and its staffers have excelled at for decades.

One such example is an excellent article from the Christian Review last week, which blasts the USCCB. Allow us to quote a very small portion from the publication, whose title is "Are the U.S. Bishops Covering Up Child Exploitation Again?" Note the "again" part, which sets the tone right out of the gate.

Choice quotes from the article are as follows:

You would think that after the sex abuse scandals of the past 70 years, the billions paid out by the bishops in secret settlement agreements, the bankrupting now of almost three dozen dioceses (and counting) to avoid having to pay any more, not to mention the wrecked lives of the children (mostly boys), the suicides, the drug addictions, the nightmares, that after all that, the scoundrels in miters would have learned a lesson. But no.

There's just too much money in it for them to care about the kids — way too much money. In fact, the total amount of money the U.S. bishops draw down from federal, state, county and municipal governments is in excess of a billion dollars.

A large chunk of that funnels to so-called Catholic Charities, which is neither Catholic nor very charitable.

In 2002, the neglect and complicity of the U.S. bishop in the gay-clergy sex abuse scandal was finally brought to light by Boston Globe's nearly year-long exposé. What that series of prize-winning reports revealed was that much of the hierarchy are downright sinister sociopaths who hide behind the Church.

Then, after calling the Dallas Charter to "fix" the problem, nothing changed. A great show was put on for the media, but, eventually, the truth came out again. The very men behind the Dallas Charter, especially former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, were themselves abusers. They had just conveniently drafted the charter to exclude bishops from any accountability.

That all came crashing down in 2018 when it came out, again through legal action, that McCarrick was the most notorious abuser perhaps in Church history.

But once again, the bishops circled the wagons, protected themselves, and zero discussion was allowed about the entire network of prelates who knew and protected the powerful cardinal, or at least looked the other way. More than five years later, not one bishop who knew about it (and there were dozens and dozens) has been turned out of office.

The problem isn't the rules or guidelines or canon law or even the evil; the problem is the men in charge. They don't really see this as a life-destroying evil; they see it as a legal and public relations problem. Sex abuse is bad because of the black eye we get, not because it is a monstrous evil in and of itself.

So now fast-forward to the latest chapter of the bishops involved in exploiting children, only, this time, the children have been placed directly in their "care" by a monstrous child-killing government that is perfectly content to have children suffer, to advance its communist-driven agenda of destroying the republic.

And the bishops make billions from that same government leviathan. What they have had to pay out for the sex abuse scandal, they have easily refilled their coffers with tax dollars, with no end in sight.

Something needs to be done about this, and Church Militant is leading the charge with regard to it, at least among concerned Catholics. We don't want to tip our hand just yet, but stay tuned. There's much more to come.

TRANSCRIPT

In what can only be described in terms of Marxist oppression, Michigan's lesbian attorney general has brought criminal charges against the state's slate of Republican electors going back to 2020. In an unprecedented flex of authority, Dana Nessel will attempt to convince the court that the document the 16 Republicans signed was a forgery.

You'll recall that because various states had such controversy swirling around, in some blue states, like Michigan, Republicans got together and produced their own slate of electors to present to Congress and the Electoral College.

And now, three years after the fact, Nessel comes bombing in and rounds up the 16 Republicans and hits them with felony charges for their list.

Political conservatives have rallied around the 16 and even produced a legal-bill fundraising event for them last week — a livestreaming telethon carried by the conservative media outlet The Gateway Pundit.

They had multiple guests on, talking about different aspects of all this, and Church Militant was one of those guests.

Check it out.

Today's Vortex features Michael's Sept. 7 interview with Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being taken to court again for quoting on social media the biblical stance against sodomy.