-
Join 1,479 other subscribers
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
-
Recent Posts
- REFLECTIONS BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION
- The Church’s conscience must always be clear in examining any conflict between the Divine and natural law when justifying the acceptance of government aid and largesse.
- THE PATRIOT POST SCORES AGAIN
- THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOT READ IT
- MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS!!!
Top Posts & Pages
- FRANCIS, ALREADY EXCOMMUNICATED UNDER UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, COMPOUNDS HIS EXCOMMUNICATION BY PARTICIPATING IN THE PAGAN RITE IN THE VATICAN GARDENS.
- STAY STRONG IN THE FAITH EVEN IN THE FACE OF PERSECUTION FROM THE 'SHEPHERDS' OF THE CHURCH
- LONG LIVE EUGENE JACQUES BULLARD, THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN FIGHTER PILOT IN HISTORY, HE IS A VETERAN OF WORLD WAR I AND A NATIONAL HERO OF FRANCE
- THE MOMENT OF TRUTH WILL COME FOR THE CHURCH IN OCTOBER, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY THAT WE AVOID SCHISM!
- YOU MAY LIKE MUSHROOMS, BUT THEY CAN KILL JUST LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD KILLS MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN
- Randy Engel MAKES A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE GROWTH OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE HIERARCHY IN THE United States
- 2 ABOUT ME
- JOE BIDEN HELD HANDS WITH THE "REAL LEADER" OF THE KKK
- Introduction to What Follows:On Tuesday, January 26th, Senator Rand Paul made a motion on the Senate Floor to effectively end Senate plans to conduct an Impeachment Trial of former President Donald Trump. His effort was defeated by a vote of 55-45, with 5 Republicans voting with the opposition to follow through with the trial.One of the dissenting Republicans was my Republican Senator; my other Senator is a so-called Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Irritated by her vote, I contacted state Staff whom I know and asked that the Senator provide an explicit explanation of why she opposed the move, and to please omit the usual “happy talk” common to letters of response.I received a response the next day, and after reading it, I began to analyze more carefully each point in the justification. I concluded that virtually none were worthy or convincing and that they amounted to nothing more than the evasive language for which career politicians and their staffs are so well qualified. Making either side of an issue sound like the obvious choice without exposing the deep political calculations behind the decision.I set about responding in detail. Below is the combination of the Senator's words, unindented, with selected highlighting by me. My personal response is indented and italicized, and inserted following the original text to which it responds.Herewith the net result:========================================================Response to Senator Susan Collins Memo Explaining Vote Against Senator Rand Paul Motion on Senate Taking Up Impeachment Trial of Trump on 26 January 2021Opening Comment: I find Senator Collins' explanation unsatisfactory, astonishing, and a fine example of the “my hands are clean” political rhetoric typical of high-level staffers in Congress. It smacks of after the fact rationalization; I find it hard to accept there was time to prepare such a “well-researched” analysis between the time Senator Paul made the motion and when Senator Collins had to make her vote after reviewing the memo. On the other hand, maybe the Senator had decided where she would come down on the subject before hearing any comments on the floor from her colleagues, and the backup white-paper was “a memo to file” for constituent and memoir purposes.As I read the material, images came to mind of Rep. Adam Schiff repeatedly standing before cameras assuring us that “the evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia is right there in plain view,” without ever revealing what the evidence “in plain view” is. And his words of insinuation: “it may very well be that” …... which infers that “it may very well not be that.” In other words, pure stagecraft without a shred of evidentiary value.And the utter lack of credible evidence that Trump fomented “insurrection.” In fact, reports are surfacing that the FBI has uncovered plans that predate the President's speech.Hypotheticals like “could” and “would” are routinely sustained as “drawing conclusions” in a court setting when objected to.Pem and Bob,Here is a reply from Senator Collins-Thank you for contacting me about the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump and my decision to support allowing the trial to begin. While the Constitution does not explicitly express Congress’ jurisdiction when the subject of impeachment is a former president, or any former officer, its text and purpose, as well as Senate precedent, support the conclusion that the trial should proceed. “Not explicitly,” but you read it into it anyway. You are engaging in legal distraction, finding words not there, as in “penumbras.” The Constitution is what it says it is, not what you want to find hidden between the lines. Either it explicitly says something, or it doesn't. Stating that impeachment relates to Presidents and other officers is pretty explicit to those of us who don't look for ways to imagine hidden meanings or ways to stretch it to support situational interests. Washington is rife with those who will swear a meaning not self-evident is there anyway, in keeping with the attached cornucopia. And “Senate precedent” is a self-rationalizing phrase, which carries no Constitutional weight. “Supporting a conclusion” is a subjective term, to say the least.I begin my analysis with the text of the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides two possible penalties for conviction. The first is removal, a consequence that flows directly from conviction by the Senate. The second penalty – which requires a separate consideration after conviction – is disqualification from holding office again. If the Senate were unable to consider disqualification after a president’s term had expired, the second penalty could lose its meaning. If the Senate dismissed this action based on a lack of jurisdiction, it would create a precedent under which a future president could avoid disqualification simply by waiting for the closing days of his term to engage in misconduct. “Could lose its meaning?” Its meaning is its meaning, Senator! Applying the Constitution is your sworn duty, not twisting it to avoid some imagined loss of meaning! If and would are irrelevant to the situation at hand. What about you violating your promise to the Maine electorate? The second penalty consideration is dependent on qualification to consider the first, which is limited to the President, which he is not. Your own words say separate consideration AFTER conviction on the first, which clearly cannot happen because the “Defendant” is not President, and therefore not subject to impeachment.In fact, Senate precedent already supports the notion that a trial can continue after someone has left office. Most notably, in 1876, the Senate tried William Belknap, a corrupt Secretary of War who had quickly resigned in a failed effort to escape impeachment. During the trial, former Secretary Belknap asserted that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over his case because he was a private citizen. A majority of Senators voted to reject his argument, concluding that Belknap was subject “to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.”What does “Senate precedent” have to do with anything? Your responsibility is to honor the Constitution, not to look for various and sundry ways to escape its clear meaning. Harking back to 1876 to make a point is a bit of a stretch, one would think. Do you take an oath to honor Senate precedent or the Constitution? Senate precedents include some shameful past history; Senator Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy come to mind, along with many others less notable. Regardless, a senate vote does not define Constitutionality. I have no doubt a search by the CRS could dig up scores of Senate votes that violated the Constitution.The majority of scholars who have looked at this question agree that the Senate has jurisdiction over former officers. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, “most scholars who have closely examined [this] question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.” A recent letter signed by more than 150 constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum concludes: “the Constitution’s text and structure, history, and precedent make clear that Congress’s impeachment power permits it to impeach, try, convict, and disqualify former officers, including former presidents.”“Majority of scholars” and “most scholars” and “more than 150 constitutional scholars” are rhetorical gambits to provide air cover for the desired outcome. If I had your resources, I could find scholars, whose qualifications are as open to interpretation as your unnamed ones, who could take the opposite view and overwhelm yours. These are silly proclamations with no substance; such fluff is unworthy of you.A final point that leads me to believe the Senate has no choice but to accept jurisdiction in this matter is that the House impeached President Trump before his term expired, for acts committed while in office. Richard Fallon, a Constitutional Law professor at Harvard Law School, explained, “What the House did was indisputably within its jurisdiction when the House did it. Since the Senate has the authority to disqualify President Trump from future office-holding if it convicts, then going ahead with the trial would also be within its jurisdiction.” What “acts while committed in office?” That is a claim not in evidence. No evidence was presented! What testimony was taken? Are you so gullible as to act on what others with a clear and present political agenda have claimed, but with no substantiation? Does due process mean nothing? And are you in the habit of abiding by anything a Harvard Law Professor says, or only those things that confirm a decision you had already made? I imagine Congress has perfected the fine art of Professor shopping by subject area and ideology, along with thousands of others who stand ready to famously give their learned opinion. Saying something is “indisputable” is hogwash. That's what courts are for: to settle disputes.While some claim that a Senate trial, in this case, would open the door to impeachments of any former officeholder, the question before the Senate was only about whether the Senate has jurisdiction over officials who have been impeached before leaving office. Because that was the case here, I believed that the Senate must accept jurisdiction over this impeachment trial and therefore I voted to allow the trial to move forward.In summary, your argument is based entirely on rhetorical gambits of “could” and “would” and unidentified “scholars” of unknown origins in this question, whose reasoning cannot be challenged. Could and would speculate on future possibilities that are not in evidence.In summary, I find your response specious, lacking in rigor, and constructed as typical after the fact rationale with the help of paid staff who specialize in such discourse.I believe that the Senate must not accept jurisdiction, but the vote is yours, and I shall always remember that you poll scholars to guide you in your votes.In closing, I'm left to wonder what scholars those who voted for Senator Rand's motion used in their deliberations. Since there were 45 of them, I'm assuming that their vast army of scholars outnumbered yours by a large measure. Wouldn't it make a fine exhibition to have a “March of the Scholarly Debate Society” take place in the Senate Chamber before each vote? I might suggest you include some engineering scholars in the mix; they tend to be more logical and fact-based than Academics in the field of Law. Sincerely,Susan M. CollinsUnited States SenatorThe following items are provided for reader edification by Pem Schaeffer......Law of the Infinite Cornucopia From WikipediaJump to: navigation, searchThe Law of the Infinite Cornucopia, put forth by Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski suggests that for any given doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which one can support it.A historian's application of this law might be that a plausible cause can be found for any given historical development. A biblical theologian's application of this law might be that for any doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of biblical evidence to support it. Scalia on Moderate Justices:Biden’s remark reminds me not only of the stakes in tomorrow's election but also reminds me of what Justice Scalia said in 2019 about so-called “moderate” judges:You hear in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, we want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, “Draw me a moderate contract?” The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one.
- AMERICA IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY, BUT OUR FREEDOMS ARE BEING LOST OR DIMINISHED AT AN ALARMING RATE
Top Clicks
Monthly Archives: October 2019
How is it possible to overstate the magnitude of the threat with which we are faced? An important historical connection which has yet to be investigated. Its touchstone lies the fact that, when Jorge Bergoglio writes the wordnature, he capitalizes it (either literally or in effect). Based upon this usage, some of the Synod’s critics detect an “implicit pantheism” stemming from pagan superstition. Cardinal Müller, noting that capital “Nature’ is also known as “Mother Earth”, cogently points out, “Our mother is a person, not the earth; And our mother in faith is Mary.”
Thursday, October 17, 2019 AMAZON SYNOD: What’s with the Capital ‘N’ for Nature? Written by Helen M. Weir, MIRate this item https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/4635-capital-n-nature With the Amazon Synod upon us at last, unbiased observers of this fastidiously managed act of political theater … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
2 Comments
MORE CONFUSION AT 1P5
Catholic Monitor http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/10/does-ip5-think-athanasius-was-wrong-to.html Wednesday, October 30, 2019 Do Skojec & 1P5 think Athanasius was Wrong to Teach Jesus is God because “there [was] No Official Church Teaching on this Issue”? Francis apologist Steve Skojec and his website, One Peter Five, … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on MORE CONFUSION AT 1P5
BROTHER ALEXIS BUGNOLO CLARIFIES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CANONICAL TERMS: MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM
Munus and Ministerium, a Canonical Study Oct31, 2019 by The Editor https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/ Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usagein the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on BROTHER ALEXIS BUGNOLO CLARIFIES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CANONICAL TERMS: MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM
The statues of Pachamama were not placed on the altar at the closing Mass of the Synod, but a bowl of soil with plants in it that is often connected with ceremonial rituals involving Pachamana was placed on the altar. There is one among many websites that describes the ritual (link):”If it is difficult for you to move to a natural space to offer to Mother Earth, do not worry, you can perform your own ritual at home:”- Use a bottle or flower pot full of dirt, there you proceed to make a hole, it is recommended to do it with your hands to connect with the energy of the ritual.”- A kind of well is made, and food and drinks are poured for the enjoyment of the Pachamama.”- The food option is extensive, one can place anything from fruits to Creole foods and seeds. In the case of drinks, chicha, natural juices, honey, wine, even coca leaves are suggested.”- Then we proceed to cover it with dirt and flowers. The bowl of soil remained on the altar after the Mass was concluded.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwDrvGtbBBNftMhDqRpGljrRWpr Top, Marcivana Rodrigues Paiva, representing the Satere-Mawe indigenous people in Brazil, carries a plant in the offertory procession as Pope Francis celebrates the concluding Mass of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon at the Vatican Oct. … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
3 Comments
The Catholic major Basilica of St. Peter’s is not a museum for pagan statues, and it is wrong to use it for this purpose. Besides that, putting such statuettes in a Catholic Church during a Pontifical High Mass (October 7), while members of tribes who believe in this false goddess, are present in Rome, is not treating these statuettes as museum pieces. Such an act objectively expresses, if not worship, at least solidarity with false gods, putting a false religion that is a horror in God’s eyes, as we know from many passages of the Old Testament, side by side with Catholic religion.
en.news 558 hours ago Pachamama in St Peter’s Manifests Abu Dhabi Statement – by Professor Josef Seifert The Catholic major Basilica of St. Peter’s is not a museum for pagan statues, and it would be wrong to use it for … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
3 Comments
“The canonisation of Saint John Henry Newman has come about at a providential time. Just as the Church throughout the world seems overwhelmed by doubt and moral confusion, the sudden appearance of this holy man, not just as a voice of faith and reason but as a powerful intercessor, must be timely. “
Newman’s warning about the future of the Church Francis Phillips 29 October, 2019 John Henry Newman, by William Thomas Roden https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/10/29/newmans-warning-about-the-future-of-the-church/ Newman foresaw much that we are now experiencing Having read and blogged about Fr Guy Nicholls’ study of St … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
2 Comments
THIS POST-SYNODAL REFLECTION BY GEORGE WEIGEL REPRESENTS MUCH MORE THAN AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE SYNOD WAS CONCEIVED, ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED BY PROGRESSIVES WHO HAD THE POWER TO USE THE SYNODAL PROCESS TO ACHIEVE THEIR PERSONAL GOALS, IT FORMULATES AND CALLS FOR A PLAN OF ACTION BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH TO TRANSFORM THE RADICAL PLAN OF THE ORGANIZERS OF THE SYNOD TO REMAKE THE CHURCH INTO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY Jesus Christ AND TO INSTEAD PURIFY THE CHURCH BY RIDDING IT OF THOSE ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION AND SIN THAT PRESENTLY AFFLICT IT
LETTERS FROM THE SYNOD-2019: #9REPORTS AND COMMENTARY, FROM ROME AND ELSEWHERE, ON THE SPECIAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS FOR THE PAN-AMAZON REGION: “NEW PATHS FOR THE CHURCH AND FOR AN INTEGRAL ECOLOGY” Edited by Xavier Rynne II10 . 28 . … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
5 Comments
A BRAZILIAN BISHOP CONDEMNS THE WORSHIP OF THE PAGAN GODS AT THE VATICAN
Martin M. BarillasFollow Martin Share on Facebook31 Share on Twitter Comment on this Article Share via Email Print this Page NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHMon Oct 28, 2019 – 3:10 pm EST ‘Demonic sacrilege’: Brazilian bishop condemns Vatican gardens’ ‘Pachamama’ ritual Amazon Synod, Catholic, José Luiz … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
2 Comments
Moreover, LifeSiteNews reported that Francis, himself, confirmed that the idols that were prostrated before and worshipped in front of Francis in the Vatican gardens were images of the pagan goddess Pachamama
Catholic Monitor http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/10/do-most-actual-catholics-reject-amazon.html?m=1 Sunday, October 27, 2019 Do Most Actual Catholics Reject the Francis Amazon Synod as Idolatrous & Racist? Francis collaborator Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna, claims that the majority of … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
3 Comments
WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON PACHAMAMA
Pachamama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchFor other uses, see Pachamama (disambiguation). Pachamama Earth, life, harvest, farming, crops, fertility Representation of Pachamama in the cosmology, according to Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua (1613), after a picture in the … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON PACHAMAMA
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.