Nigeria Police arrest three for alleged abduction, rape of job seeker

The suspects allegedly raped the victim repeatedly while in their custody, despite collecting N400,000 ransom from her relatives, according to the police.

by Agency Report September 19, 2020

The Police Command in Anambra State, South East Nigeria have arrested three suspects who allegedly abducted and raped a 24-year-old woman under the pretext of securing a job for her.

The command’s Spokesman, Haruna Mohammed, disclosed this in a statement in Awka on Saturday.

Mr Mohammed, a superintendent of police, said the suspects allegedly raped the victim repeatedly while in their custody, despite collecting N400,000 ransom from her relatives.

He identified the suspects as Ekwugha Chinazo, 25; Chidiebere Ogoegbunam, 24; and David Nnaemeka,19.

Mr Mohammed, however, did not disclose the identity of the victim.

He said: “On Sept. 19, at about 2:00 p.m., police operatives attached to the Command Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) arrested the syndicate at Awkuzu in the Oyi Local Government Area.

“The suspects had on Sept. 13, lured a 24-year old lady residing at St. Micheal Hostel, Temporary Site, Awka, under the pretext of securing for her a beauty make-up job.

“They picked her at Ukpo Junction along Enugu-Onitsha expressway and took her to an isolated building at Awkuzu, where they allegedly raped the victim repeatedly while in captivity for two days.”

According to him, the suspects have voluntarily confessed to the crime and the victim taken to the hospital for medical examination.

Governor’s assistant on security stabbed to death

He said investigation was still ongoing after which the suspects would be brought to book.

“Consequently, the command enjoins the public to be wary of this new trend of crime and report suspicious persons through the police emergency number 07039194332 or the nearest police station for prompt response please,” he advised. (NAN)

Palace Stun Man United 3-1 In Season Opener At Old Trafford

checkpointcharley By checkpointcharley

Britain Soccer Premier League

Manchester United’s Premier League season got off to a dreadful start as Wilfried Zaha scored twice against his former club to hand Crystal Palace a 3-1 win at Old Trafford.

The Eagles have now won their first two games of a Premier League season for the first time and on their last two visits to United.

After Andros Townsend opened the scoring early on, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s men felt aggrieved with the nature of Palace’s second from the penalty spot as Victor Lindelof was harshly punished for handball and David De Gea’s save from Jordan Ayew’s spot-kick was ruled out by VAR before Zaha converted the retaken penalty.

But they could have no complaints about the result as they looked way off the pace in their first match of the new campaign, little over a month since they ended the last one with defeat to Sevilla in the Europa League semi-finals.

United finished last season on a 14-match unbeaten run in the Premier League to secure a third-place finish and raise hopes of mounting a title challenge to rivals Liverpool and Manchester City this season.

But on this evidence they need far more than the solitary signing of Donny Van de Beek, who scored on his debut, to compete at the top of the table.

Solskjaer kept faith with De Gea in goal ahead of Dean Henderson, who has returned to Old Trafford from an impressive loan spell at Sheffield United.

The Spanish international was beaten after just seven minutes but was blameless as the United defence was carved open by Jeffrey Schlupp’s run and cross from the left and Townsend ghosted in ahead of Luke Shaw to convert at the far post.

Solskjaer had left Mason Greenwood on the bench after complaining he was thrust into the spotlight too soon by England after the 18-year-old was sent home in disgrace from international duty for breaking coronavirus protocols.

But without the teenager, United looked toothless in attack, while Palace always posed a threat on the counter-attack.

De Gea justified his inclusion even before the penalty save with a brilliant stop from Ayew in first-half stoppage time to keep the Red Devils in the game.

Greenwood was called for at half-time and he headed wide United’s best chance to equalise from Timothy Fonsu-Mensah’s cross.

Zaha failed to make the grade in two seasons at United, but with Alex Ferguson, the man who signed him in 2013, in attendance, he showed why remains in such high demand.

The Ivorian’s first goal of the afternoon was ruled out by the offside flag from another promising Palace counter-attack.

But from Palace’s next break they got their reward as Ayew’s shot struck Lindelof on the arm and, after reviewing the pitch side monitor, referee Martin Atkinson pointed to the penalty spot.

De Gea saved Ayew’s first penalty, but after another interruption from VAR, the spot-kick was retaken for De Gea being millimetres off his line when the ball was struck.

Zaha took over the responsibility and this time crashed the ball home to score against his former club.

Van de Beek came off the bench to replace the ineffective Paul Pogba and showed his goalscoring instinct from midfield by latching onto a loose ball inside the area to halve United’s arrears 10 minutes from time.

But just five minutes later the game was killed as a contest when Zaha shrugged off Lindelof with ease before blasting low and hard past De Gea.

This Day in History: September 19

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Featured Event

George Washington

1796 – George Washington’s Farewell Address published. In his Farewell Address, printed in a Philadelphia newspaper on this day in 1796, George Washington, the first U.S. president, implored his country to maintain neutrality and avoid entangling alliances with Europe.


1991 – In the Ötztal Alps on the ItalianAustrian border, German tourists discovered a mummified human body (later known as the Iceman) that was subsequently determined to date from 3300 bce.

John II Casimir Vasa

1657 – John II Casimir Vasa, king of Poland, signed the Treaty of Wehlau, renouncing the suzerainty of the Polish crown over ducal Prussia and making Frederick William the duchy’s sovereign ruler.

California Homeowner Who Lost House to Wildfire Slams Kamala Harris For Trespassing on Fire-Damaged Property For “Photo Opportunity”

Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris A California homeowner who lost her home to a wildfire is outraged after seeing Dem Governor Gavin Newsom and Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris trespass on her family’s fire-damaged property. The Patton family has not been allowed to see the devastation firsthand so they were furious when they saw Harris stomping…

Source: California Homeowner Who Lost House to Wildfire Slams Kamala Harris For Trespassing on Fire-Damaged Property For “Photo Opportunity” (VIDEO)

Politics, the Church, and Satan

By Dr. Jeff Mirus Sep 18, 2020

Two recent news stories confirm deep flaws in the Catholic Church’s practical commitment to objective moral norms in the United States (and by extension, throughout the West). By “practical commitment”, I do not mean official Church teaching but practical decisions by huge numbers of Catholics, both high and low, to favor and support social movements and political platforms that advocate objectively immoral laws. Again, these decisions are typically based not on Church teaching but on culturally-borrowed perceptions of which causes and candidates are “humane”, or “caring”, or “nice”.

The two news stories I am using as indicators, though they are hardly fresh news in and of themselves, are these:

Now, a reader might opine that, after all, there are many complex issues in play on both sides of the aisle, but as a matter of hard fact, the issues which attract support based on allegedly Catholic principles for the Democratic Party are invariably rooted in prudential or attitudinal questions, about which good Catholics may disagree. In contrast, the issues which attract support based on allegedly Catholic principles for the Republican Party are invariably absolute questions, about which the Church teaches that only one position is morally acceptable. In this matter the “practical commitment” of the collectivity of lay Catholic voters simply mirrors the “practical commitment” of their Catholic teachers and preachers, who have for the past two generations failed to give any collective countercultural witness, who have failed to take objective moral norms seriously, and have often even gone a few steps further in fabricating entirely new norms.

How can we explain this widespread refusal to allow clear Catholic moral teachings to guide the socio-political decisions of both Catholic leaders (bishops, priests, prominent religious, and professors) and the Catholic rank and file?

Trump-Biden and the question of cultural acceptability

It goes without saying that no political candidate is Satan, just as no political candidate is Christ. In fact, the divide between Catholic voters who support Donald Trump and those who support Joseph Biden is based far more on “image” than on “policy”. I’ve recently had several registered users break their connection with because our writers favor Donald Trump’s position on the life issues while also generally concluding that it is objectively immoral for any Catholic to support Joe Biden’s positive positions on abortion, gay marriage, and any number of other initiatives which either murder other persons or destroy the family—without which (as history is beginning once again to prove) no culture can long survive. But what has been alleged against Trump to justify this deliberate public abandonment of the moral law is that Trump is guilty of just as great a sin, namely racism.

Now it is true that a great many deeply-committed Catholics must hold their noses when voting for Donald Trump, but the cause is not Trump’s alleged racism (or discrimination against any person based on biological characteristics over which he or she has no control). Rather, it is that Trump has a very harsh and dismissive manner of speaking about those with whom he disagrees, by which he proves repeatedly that he does not know what it means to be either gentlemanly or statesmanlike. He simply does not recognize the truth of Hilaire Belloc’s famous stanza:

Of Courtesy, it is much less
Than Courage of Heart or Holiness,
Yet in my Walks it seems to me
That the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
      [from poem entitled “Courtesy”]

Donald Trump is a stranger to courtesy, and this provides endless fodder for all those who wish to argue that Trump’s various harsh or dismissive (and frequently ill-considered) statements prove that he approves only of “his own kind”, and so must clearly be willing to deny fundamental human rights to those who are different, whether by virtue of gender, sexual attractions, or skin color. This is exacerbated by Trump’s comparatively hard line on illegal immigration which (understandably but perhaps not wisely) engenders distrust among Hispanics. Moreover, the dominant media and professorial classes in the United States (as throughout the West) are overwhelmingly “secular liberal”, and these classes gleefully feed the narrative that Trump is a “hater” who opposes human rights for all those who are “different”.

In one sense, this would not matter if we humans could not instinctively sense the values of the dominant culture and instinctively seek to conform to them. Sadly, if one wishes not to be considered “deplorable” in our times, one must espouse the opinions of the media and professorial elites or else find oneself on the wrong side of history. Then, if one wishes to justify morally the resulting slavish conformity, one must present the widely accepted reasons. And these are usually mere excuses for capitulation to whatever is perceived as “mainstream”.

To stick with the Trump-Biden example, the prevailing myth is easily exploded, and the fact that this does not really matter much to a great many people is proof that we are dealing primarily with the instinctive thirst for acceptance by the dominant culture. For the excuses made by Catholics who maintain a moral preference for Biden are not based on political realities at all. As a matter of hard fact, one can describe Trump’s personal attitudes and sentiments in any way one likes without being able to cite a single policy he has advocated to disadvantage any group based on anything other than the objective morality of their behavior—morality as understood through the natural law and the teachings of the Catholic Church. As far as I have been able to determine, at least, Trump has never advocated any policy based on racial or other natural characteristics.

That does not mean that Catholics must agree with all of Trump’s prudential judgments, or approve his habitual manner of speech. But it is very hard to fault Trump for advocating policies that violate the objective moral law. And my point is that this cannot be said about Joe Biden. In fact, Biden’s candidacy is mostly defined by his support and patronage of those who engage in objectively seriously immoral behavior, and who wish to continue the modern secular trend of having the right to that behavior guaranteed in law. The conclusion is inescapable that huge numbers of Catholics have been carefully taught by the dominant culture what attitudes and goals are required to be considered “kind and caring”, and they either hone or dull their consciences accordingly.

Cardinal Tobin and the triumph of the prudential

Cardinal Tobin’s remarks signal another serious aspect of our problem: The modern Church’s continuing refusal to insist that the objective moral law trumps the relative merits and demerits of various prudential decisions, whether or not the dominant culture is able to paint some decisions as “uncaring” or not. Catholics are not bound to choose one particular plan for the environment as “best” of all or one particular plan for social improvement as “better” than others. The Church herself has no Divinely-given knowledge or authority on such subjects. She has no guarantees of wisdom in weighing either the feasibility or the most likely long-term results of any particular social or environmental reconstruction plan (to mention only the two most obvious examples).

What the Church in our time has largely forgotten—apparently Cardinal Tobin among so many others—is that the Church’s mission is to preach what she knows to be true about Jesus Christ and his plan for all of us to be elevated by grace through sacramental participation, prayer and adhesion to the Christian moral code—which mostly comes to us through the natural law as taught and clarified in Revelation and the Church’s Magisterium, which has the authority to interpret both. Good and faithful Catholic communities, if they are formed well spiritually, gradually take care of all the prudential socio-economic issues simply by acting familially, socially, economically and politically like good and faithful Catholics. But when the absolutes of faith and morals are not taught, upheld and insisted upon in the Church herself, she loses her power to foster good and faithful Catholic communities.

Instead we are faced with a Catholic professoriate which very frequently denies the absolutes of the natural law, with the connivance of too many ecclesiastics who neatly sidestep the issue by constantly elevating the prudential over the absolute. I have written about this several times, so here I will simply call attention once again to the disproportion between the emphasis of too many ecclesiastical leaders on the need for Catholics to endorse one social or environmental proposal after another, as compared with the rarity with which these same ecclesiastics insist on understanding the concrete demands of the absolute moral law and living in accordance with them. The New Testament is a good corrective for these errors. You will find there no advocacy for the socio-political improvement of mankind, and plenty of condemnation of plain and simple personal immorality.

Satanic influence

To cite another source besides the obvious, I note that there is a fine article in the latest issue of First Things by Gary Saul Morson (Suicide of the Liberals) which explores the attitudes of the elites in Russia between 1900 and 1917. What Morson finds is that for the Russian elites it was fashionable not only to mouth the revolutionary slogans of the day but to fund the organizations which were openly dedicated to their own destruction (even though they did not personally change their lives very much before the end).

This is a mirror image of what is happening in the West as a whole, and certainly in the United States. It has been repeatedly demonstrated through sociological studies that our elites—the wealthiest and most influential people in our society—advocate all the “correct” causes of “liberation” from social and sexual constraint, even while they tend not to take advantage of the lack of constraint in their own lives nearly as much as those who are lower down in the social order—whose lives and families are very frequently destroyed as a result. In the end, however, it is in the nature of revolutionary cultures that old elites are swept away to make room for new.

As Morson expressed it:

[This problem] has bothered many students of revolutionary movements. Revolutions never succeed without the support of wealthy, liberal, educated society. Yet revolutionaries seldom conceal that their success entails the seizure of all wealth, the suppression of dissenting opinion, and the murder of class enemies.

William Butler Yeats described the essential problem with even greater penetration in the first stanza of his brilliant poem, “The Second Coming”, written in 1919:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyone in the West today who cannot see the application of these lines to our own situation is lost in the deadly haze of cultural conformity, a haze too often spread through Catholic leadership and Catholic education in a Church so badly in need of renewal. But while I have mentioned the instinctive human recognition of the existence and pressure of a dominant culture, and the natural human desire to gain status by conforming to it, I have not mentioned what I suspect most of my readers can also discern: Namely, that there is a Satanic element in the formation and exploitation of those dominant human cultures which are characterized by the deliberate flight from God.

Here we have perhaps the most important insight underlying another well-known sociological fact—that Catholic support of the objective moral law in politics rises in direct proportion to the frequency of attendance at Mass. This is in spite of so much bad Catholic preaching and instruction! Of course, while it is frustrating that so many of our contemporaries cannot discern the Satanic element in our culture’s mad flight from reality, it is hardly surprising. St. Paul faced the same problem with many alleged apostles and Catholic leaders in his own day, and he described it in this way:

[S]uch men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. [2 Cor 11:13-15a]

For his part, Paul concludes that “their end will correspond to their deeds” (v.15b). I only mention this in case you did not know.