A PRIVATE MESSAGE FROM HER GUARDIAN ANGEL


>> 
>> Guardian Angel
>> June 11, 2022 
>> 
>> The world is heartsick
>> For man has been made in the image of God who is love
>> And so he seeks a heart wherein resides that infinite love for which he has been made
>> But alas, in creatures of the world it is not found.
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> For man seeks a heart that beats in synchrony with his own 
>> But although he looks far and wide 
>> He finds not what he seeks 
>> And thus experiences not two hearts that beat as one. 
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> For man longs for the warmth of hearth and home
>> But human hearts are hard and stone cold 
>> And yet there is a fire that blazes forth from a sacred heart 
>> That warms a man and sets him on fire. 
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> And this sickness brings havoc and sorrow upon the world 
>> But the cure for this sickness is found only in the One who first offered His heart to man 
>> And who waits in love for man’s response. 
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> For man yearns for a passionate heart
>> That would die rather than live without him
>> But in one place only is this found –
>> In the heart from which infinite goodness and mercy flow.
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> For man shuns God and turns to things of the world 
>> But he finds things of the world are heartless.
>> But God has a heart- the Sacred Heart of Jesus 
>> In which burns the furnace of divine love.
>> 
>> The world is heartsick 
>> Oh but here is sweet medicine 
>> And here are hearts healed
>> And made whole
>> In the Sacred Heart of Jesus. 
>> 
>> Come here before the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus
>> And enter in.”

-S
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

RedState: Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

By Bonchie | RedState

That thing that we are assured never happens, happened. Former Democrat US Rep. Michael “Ozzie” Myers has pled guilty to multiple charges related to a scheme to stuff ballot boxes for Democrat candidates between 2014 and 2018.

Myers has a checkered history, having been expelled from Congress for accepting bribes. Apparently, he didn’t learn his lesson and has been running a ring of corruption for decades.

A former congressman from Philadelphia pleaded guilty Monday to charges related to fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes for Democratic candidates between 2014 and 2018. Federal prosecutors said former Democratic U.S. Rep. pleaded guilty to violations of election law, conspiracy, bribery and obstruction. Messages seeking comment were left for his defense lawyers listed on the online docket. In a sentencing memo dated Friday, federal prosecutors said his “criminal efforts were generally, although not exclusively, directed at securing election victories for local judicial candidates running for Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas or Municipal Court who had employed Myers as a ‘political consultant.’”

According to the report, Myers bribed a judge of elections in Philidelphia to add votes to the candidates of his choice, again, all Democrats. Those bribes totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this was no small operation. Further, Myers also conspired with another elections judge in a scheme to push people to vote for certain candidates. Lastly, that judge also cast votes for candidates who weren’t even on the ballot.

Whether those judges are themselves being prosecuted isn’t mentioned in the DOJ press release that Fox is basing its report on. It’s probable that they were willing to testify against Myers and may have received some kind of immunity. I would hope not, though, given how serious of a crime accepting bribes is.

Of course, the response to this will be that it happened prior to the 2020 election. But anyone who thinks this is an isolated incident in a place like Philidelphia is as naive as they come. In 2020, because of the sudden, likely illegal changes to election rules, including mass mail-in voting, ballot stuffing would have been far easier than in past elections. The idea that absolutely nothing untoward went on when ballot stuffing schemes existed in 2014-2018 is laughable, and anyone not being completely obtuse will admit that.

These major blue cities are plagued with election issues, and those in charge have no incentive to clean things up. For the foreseeable future, Republicans will have to run campaigns that run around corruption that isn’t going anywhere.

Author: Bonchie

Source: RedState: Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on RedState: Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

THE TWEET HEARD AROUND THE WORLD

RELIGION & LIBERTY: VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1 & 2

The U.S. Bishops and the Tweet Heard ’Round the World

BY SAMUEL GREGG, D.PHIL. (OXON.) • JUNE 06, 2022

(Image credit: Associated Press)

Share this article:

Like many other Catholics living in the United States, I was alternatively bemused by and dismayed at a particular tweet issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on January 10, 2022. For a moment, I thought we were reliving the 1970s.

In the context of encouraging ordinary Catholics to involve themselves in the synodal process launched by Pope Francis to engage in reflection on the challenges facing the Catholic Church today, someone with access to the USCCB Twitter feed tweeted: “Here are seven attitudes we can all adopt as we continue our synodal journey together. Which one inspires you the most? Let us know in the comments below.” The attitudes listed were: innovative outlook, inclusivity, open-mindedness, listening, accompaniment, co-responsibility, and dialogue.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=ActonInstitute&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3JlZnNyY19zZXNzaW9uIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6Im9mZiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0Zndfc2Vuc2l0aXZlX21lZGlhX2ludGVyc3RpdGlhbF8xMzk2MyI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJpbnRlcnN0aXRpYWwiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X3Jlc3VsdF9taWdyYXRpb25fMTM5NzkiOnsiYnVja2V0IjoidHdlZXRfcmVzdWx0IiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1480570606160695297&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acton.org%2Freligion-liberty%2Fvolume-35-number-1-2%2Fus-bishops-and-tweet-heard-round-world&sessionId=52b40d34cb75335223db6948349576b667b6ef42&siteScreenName=ActonInstitute&theme=light&widgetsVersion=b45a03c79d4c1%3A1654150928467&width=550px

A recent tweet from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a reminder of a time when many Catholic bishops strayed outside their area of expertise.

To say that Catholic Twitter-World was unhappy at this strange mixture of managerial-corporate speak and sentimental-humanitarian babble was an understatement. It erupted with replies like “Who wrote this spiritual guidance, Nabisco Corp?” and “We’re not a Fortune 500 company, we are literally the body of Christ.” “Is this entire synod,” one tweeter wrote, “being run by human resources interns?”

Why, others pointed out, did the attitudes say nothing about faithfulness to and proclamation of the Christian faith, or commitment to the teachings of the Church? Actress Patricia Heaton tweeted the following: “How about you adopt this attitude: ‘Christ shed his blood on the cross to save you, so attend with an attitude of repentance, humility, gratitude, joy and worship. Let your lips be full of praise for your savior Jesus.’ Or ‘innovative outlook’ I guess…” In a similar manner, the former atheist, Christian convert, and now Catholic author Leah Libresco, tweeted: “If you need 7 . . . The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.”

Truth be told, I wasn’t especially surprised that the USSCB would tweet such a statement, but then I have never had high expectations of bishops’ conferences.

Certainly, bishops’ conferences have their significance in the Church’s life. I would add that many of those who work for them are truly selfless individuals who live holy lives and have given themselves to the Church. Many could be working in very different jobs and earning much more money. They also put up with a great deal, including from those bishops who, judging from their Twitter feeds, seem indistinguishable from your average NGO activist.

It’s also true, however, that some people who work for bishops’ conferences are susceptible—especially in hyper-political cities like Washington, D.C.— to whatever happens to be the latest secular trend in language, culture, or politics. They simply don’t grasp that the more “with-the-moment” they try to be, the more feeble and occasionally ridiculous they make the Church look.

If there is a place where we should be able to find some respite from the woke discourse and endless “diversity-equity-inclusion” rhetoric that now permeates so much of America, one would like to think that the Church, with its deep theological and philosophical resources, 2,000 years of reflection on the human condition, and understanding that there are truths about God and humanity that never change, would be such a place. To put it in economic terms: This is Catholicism’s comparative advantage. Why pretend that it is not?

The truth, however, is that some Catholics who work directly for the Church are like many other Catholics: extremely subservient to the secular zeitgeist. Many Catholic bishops in Germany, for example, and some of the thousands of people who work for church-tax-funded German Catholic organizations, have shown (especially since 2013) that their lodestones are (bad) psychology, (bad) sociology, and (heretical) theologians who long ago gave up any pretense of believing in many of Christianity’s central dogmas and doctrines.

This isn’t a uniquely Catholic problem. My Orthodox Jewish friends, for example, regularly lament to me that many progressive Jews have effectively reduced their religion to highly secularist conceptions of social justice. Likewise, evangelical Christian colleagues have stressed to me that liberal Protestantism went down that road a long time ago. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that liberal forms of religion seem to be collapsing everywhere. What do they have to offer that can’t be provided by progressive politics and social movements?

This in turn points to a broader issue: When should the Catholic Church—and, more specifically, Catholic bishops’ conferences—speak publicly and about what subjects?

The issue of the Catholic Church’s involvement in public policy debates has always been contentious. If Catholics focus exclusively on the hope of life after death, they are inevitably accused of abdicating responsibility for life here on earth. Yet if the Church becomes too focused upon temporal affairs, it risks forgetting that its fundamental mission is the salvation of souls. Where, some ask, do the boundaries lie? To what extent should the Church involve itself in public debates?

The Swiss Catholic intellectual Cardinal Charles Journet once noted that Catholics have always struggled to avoid two temptations in regard to public life. The first is the tendency to view the political world as something cut off from the claims of God’s Kingdom—in short, to believe that a person’s Catholic faith is irrelevant when it comes to public life. The second temptation, he said, is to allow the Church to mutate gradually into a type of ideological force that is primarily if not exclusively concerned with the here-and-now.

Then there are the issues surrounding the more specific details of that involvement. In short, who in the Church can say what about public policy issues? What degree of authoritativeness should be attached to the statements of bishops’ conferences about such issues by the faithful?

(Image Credit: Shutterstock)

These are very important questions, not least because failure to grasp the subtlety of the answers can lead to much confusion between, for example, what is binding for all Catholics and what is simply a prudential judgement with which individual Catholics are entitled to agree or disagree. Unfortunately, there have been occasions when statements issued by bishop conferences have contributed to such confusion. In many respects, the story of the American Catholic bishops and their statements on public policy issues in the 1970s through to the mid-1990s exemplifies how not to engage such matters.

In 1986, the U.S. Catholic bishops issued one of their better-known pastoral letters, Economic Justice for All. Its release occurred after an extensive consultation process. Although the bishops included a disclaimer in the document that it somehow constituted “a blueprint for the American economy,” the Princeton legal philosopher and Catholic intellectual Robert P. George pointed out that the bishops effectively compromised this claim by offering very specific prescriptions on just about every economic issue imaginable. By any standard, these recommendations essentially reflected a “left-liberal” economic agenda of more government regulation and intervention that was, at the time, indistinguishable from the Democratic Party’s economic platform.

In itself, the precise political character of the bishops’ prescriptions was not the issue. To my mind, the problem would not have been any different if the policy preferences of Economic Justice for All had closely resembled a Republican “right-liberal” economic program. The difficulty was that while the bishops insisted that “we do not claim to make these prudential judgments with the same kind of authority that marks our declarations of principle,” they also stated that they felt “obliged to teach by example how Christians can undertake concrete analysis and make specific judgments on moral issues.” Again, Robert George posed this vital question: “Why . . . if their prudential judgments are no more binding on the faithful than yours or mine, do the bishops ‘feel obliged’ to offer them?”

Throughout the ’70s, ’80s, and early ’90s, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops persisted in offering prudential judgments on subjects about which, collectively speaking, neither they nor their advisers had any more expertise (let alone authority to speak) than many lay Catholics, other Christians, and those of all faiths and none. But by becoming so involved in offering detailed commentaries on subjects including “war in the Middle East,” “U.S. domestic food policy,” “Panama-U.S. relations,” “farm Labour,” “Lebanon and the Peace Process,” “Acceptance through Citizenship,” and “Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China,” the USCCB facilitated confusion among lay Catholics concerning the difference between principles authoritatively enunciated by magisterial teaching (and, hence, binding on Catholics) and prudential judgements (which are not binding).

Even more seriously, there is little question that some Catholics were encouraged by such statements into thinking that they could legitimately regard certain issues on which the Church has authoritatively pronounced (like, for instance, euthanasia) as requiring only the same—or even less—commitment to achieving very specific policy outcomes as they do on issues such as the appropriate degree of government intervention in the economy. In 1996, Bishop James McHugh of Camden warned that future bishops’ statements on public policy “must note the moral difference of the issues involved. Some positions are fundamental and non-negotiable.”

On many economic issues, choice is between not only bad and good options but also several good options, some of which, to cite one Catholic natural law philosopher, the late Germain Grisez, are “incompatible with one another but compatible with the Church’s teaching.” Working out how a modern society attains an end like universal healthcare may depend upon empirical and prudential judgements reasonably in dispute among people equally well informed by principles of Catholic teaching.

Having surveyed the available evidence and informed themselves of the principles of Catholic teaching, one group of Catholics may conclude that it is best realized by a predominantly state-funded system. Other Catholics, having examined the available evidence and informed themselves of the same principles, may conclude that private insurance, with a state-provided minimum safety net, is the most prudential approach. In any event, one would expect any Catholic examining such questions to acknowledge that there are many policies that people can advocate to realize such a goal while remaining in good standing with the Church. In these cases, Grisez is surely correct to say that people should not propose their opinion as the Church’s teaching.

The point is that while there is normally a reasonably strict translation of Catholic teaching about an issue like euthanasia—the intentional ending of an innocent human life, which the Church has always regarded as a grave moral evil—into a particular policy position, it is hardly the case that, for example, the objective of universal healthcare (adequate medical care for the poorest) can be similarly translated into anything like so strict a policy.

What does this mean for bishops’ statements on public policy matters? It depends on the subject. On a topic like euthanasia, where the Church has authoritatively pronounced and that translates reasonably strictly into a consistent “pro-life” position, a bishop—indeed, bishops’ conferences—may (and should) pronounce that Catholics cannot support policies that have a different object as their end.

In cases where the principles of the Church’s teaching are not strictly translatable into detailed policies owing to differences in cultures, economies, resources, etc., it is conceivable that bishops as citizens may express a preference for one policy position over another—though I think this should be done rarely, with great caution, and with plenty of formal caveats. And even if a bishops’ conference decides to address such an issue, it should always stress that any disparity between the bishops’ policy view and that of a Catholic with a different opinion on the topic does not make such a Catholic “bad” or even wrong.

Generally speaking, I think that most bishops and many of those who work for bishops conferences these days (contra the 1970s and ’80s) tend to be far more circumspect about inserting themselves into those public policy discussions where faithful Catholics are free to disagree. What’s important, however, is that, when they do, they should be doing so in a way that reflects the distinct integration of reason and faith—or natural law and revelation—that gives Catholic and other Christian reflections on the public square a distinct and powerful character.

No tweet, however artfully worded, can substitute for that.

EDITOR’S PICKS

MOST READ


Dr. Samuel Gregg is research director at the Acton Institute. He has written and spoken extensively on questions of political economy, economic history, ethics in finance, and natural law theory. He has an MA from the University of Melbourne, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in moral philosophy and political economy from the University of Oxford.

Gregg oversees Acton’s research program and team of scholars and is responsible for oversight of research international programing, including budgeting, management, personnel, publishing, and program development and

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A FRANCIS RESIGNATION WILL MORE THAN LIKELY NOT SOLVE ANYTHING; WE WILL HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH CONCLAVE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY NOT SEEN SINCE THE ERA OF THE RENAISSANCE POPES (BORGIA POPES FOR EXAMPLE)

A Francis Resignation? Not likely, but…

Steven O’ReillyJun 8June 8, 2022 (Steven O’Reilly) – There has been some speculation of late that Pope Francis might resign at some point following the next consistory this August at which he will create a whole new group of cardinals. With these new cardinals, it is said that 65% of the Cardinals eligible to vote in the next conclave will have been appointed by Francis.The resignation speculation is fed by rumors about Francis’ health, and his planned visit to L’Aquila (see What is the Meaning of Pope Francis’ Trip to L’Aquila?) which is oddly timed to occur during the consistory. A few years before his resignation, Pope Benedict XVI had visited L’Aquila and had placed his pallium on the tomb of Pope Celestine V, later understood to be a signal of his intent to later resign. Is Francis copying Benedict’s symbolic gesture? Some think it’s possible.  I get the speculation…but I doubt it.  Some are speculating one way or the other.  Here are my speculations.We know that Pope Francis went into the 2013 conclave with an agenda: irreversible change. This idea of Francis wanting to make “irreversible change” shows up in words of Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, former Superior General of the Jesuits, of whom Phil Lawler once wrote:“Father Adolfo Nicolas, the former worldwide leader of the Jesuit order, reported that Pope Francis once told him that he hoped to remain as Pontiff until “the changes are irreversible (see ‘The new cardinals: Pope Francis bids for ‘irreversible change’, Phil Lawler, September 3, 2019).The question is, from Francis’ standpoint, has he sufficiently insured his changes are irreversible? It may now seem so. As of now, over 65% of the cardinals were appointed by Francis.  These new cardinals, for the most part, seem to have been picked because they are Bergoglians, and are expected to vote that way in a conclave for a Bergoglianish-type figure.However, while, it appears quite likely, if not probable, that the next conclave will produce a Pope Francis II, there may be at least a few unforeseen wild cards in the group of cardinals Francs has created. Further, who can say what sort of wheeling and dealing might go on in the next conclave, or whether it might produce someone unexpected as far as Francis’ expectations.Francis knows his own election, dependent on cardinals created by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, was not necessarily a sure thing, even with the dubious quality of many of them. Indeed, his own election required the aid of the St. Gallen mafia, his own campaigning, the help of an “influential Italian gentleman“, the help of McCarrick, and a suspiciously timed police raid that certainly appears to have hurt the election possibilities of his chief rival for the papacy, etc (NB: all discussed in The Conclave Chronicles). If such happy “coincidences” were necessary for his own election; will Francis leave it to chance that his favored candidate — i.e., one who he hopes will secure his “irreversible” legacy, and extend it — will be as ‘fortunate’ in the next conclave?Surely, Francis is aware of the Demos letter currently circulating within the College of Cardinals (see here and here), and the grumbling about his pontificate. Certainly, as much of a prohibitive long shot as it would be, surely Pope Francis knows what might happen if, and it is a rather super-big if — against all odds — a Pope Pius XIII or Leo II were miraculously elected.  Francis would not want that as his legacy after his death. As bad as that might be in his imaginings; it would be personally far worse if he retired and had to live through it!In such a case of surprise-election of a Piux XIII or Leo II, Emeritus Francis might find himself hauled before the new Holiness and a Roman Synod that might not only question him on a host of subjects, e.g., Amoris Laetitia, the Scalfari interviews, Pachamama, etc., but would also “correct” him as well…to put it mildly.Yes. Again. I am not suggesting there is any material chance of a Pius XIII or such a synod. But, conclaves can produce surprises. The point is, I don’t think Francis would take the risk, even as incredibly small as it now is, that the next conclave might produce a successor (1) that might reverse his “irreversible changes,” and (2) haul him before the new Roman Pontiff for judgment.As negligible as these odds are, could Francis do more to improve them in his favor, whether he retires or not? It turns out the answer is “yes”.  A horrid “yes.” There is something more Francis could do to virtually guarantee a successor along the lines he wants — at least as far as human agency goes (NB: I discussed this some last year in The Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenario). Theoretically, Pope Francis could alter the laws governing papal conclaves by, for example, enacting new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of electors to a small, limited group of Cardinals.There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus). So, theoretically, in hopes of making his reforms “irreversible,” Francis could restrict eligible Cardinal-electors to a trusted set of Cardinals, for example, perhaps those who sit on his Counsel of Cardinal Advisors, at one time totaling eight cardinals but now seven (last time I checked).  Changing conclave rules to protect “reform” and “changes” is not new.  Pope Paul VI changed the rules so that Cardinals over the age of 80 would be ineligible to vote in conclaves — thus removing a segment of the College of Cardinals potentially in opposition to the reforms of Vatican II. So, the precedents are there for some sort of mechanism to be constructed, should that be the route Francis decides to go.Perhaps such a scenario is no more than a scary hypothetical. No more than an improbable nightmare scenario. Then again, this is the Pope who gave us Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi statement, the Scalfari interviews, Traditiones Custodes, and a host of other outrages. This is a Pope who wants “irreversible” change.So, to conclude, I don’t believe Francis will resign. He will go on naming more and more Bergoglian-like cardinals in his remaining time to better secure his “irreversible change.” However, it would not surprise me if he made significant changes to the conclave in the time remaining to him. If that were to happen, that, for me, would increase the odds of a possible resignation.Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, Parler, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THIS CAN HAPPEN IN ANY STATE WHERE THERE ARE DEMOCRATS

Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

By Bonchie | RedState

That thing that we are assured never happens, happened. Former Democrat US Rep. Michael “Ozzie” Myers has pled guilty to multiple charges related to a scheme to stuff ballot boxes for Democrat candidates between 2014 and 2018.

Myers has a checkered history, having been expelled from Congress for accepting bribes. Apparently, he didn’t learn his lesson and has been running a ring of corruption for decades.

A former congressman from Philadelphia pleaded guilty Monday to charges related to fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes for Democratic candidates between 2014 and 2018. Federal prosecutors said former Democratic U.S. Rep. pleaded guilty to violations of election law, conspiracy, bribery and obstruction. Messages seeking comment were left for his defense lawyers listed on the online docket. In a sentencing memo dated Friday, federal prosecutors said his “criminal efforts were generally, although not exclusively, directed at securing election victories for local judicial candidates running for Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas or Municipal Court who had employed Myers as a ‘political consultant.’”

According to the report, Myers bribed a judge of elections in Philidelphia to add votes to the candidates of his choice, again, all Democrats. Those bribes totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this was no small operation. Further, Myers also conspired with another elections judge in a scheme to push people to vote for certain candidates. Lastly, that judge also cast votes for candidates who weren’t even on the ballot.

Whether those judges are themselves being prosecuted isn’t mentioned in the DOJ press release that Fox is basing its report on. It’s probable that they were willing to testify against Myers and may have received some kind of immunity. I would hope not, though, given how serious of a crime accepting bribes is.

Of course, the response to this will be that it happened prior to the 2020 election. But anyone who thinks this is an isolated incident in a place like Philidelphia is as naive as they come. In 2020, because of the sudden, likely illegal changes to election rules, including mass mail-in voting, ballot stuffing would have been far easier than in past elections. The idea that absolutely nothing untoward went on when ballot stuffing schemes existed in 2014-2018 is laughable, and anyone not being completely obtuse will admit that.

These major blue cities are plagued with election issues, and those in charge have no incentive to clean things up. For the foreseeable future, Republicans will have to run campaigns that run around corruption that isn’t going anywhere.

Author: Bonchie

Source: RedState: Democrat Pleads Guilty to Ballot Stuffing in Pennsylvania

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THIS CAN HAPPEN IN ANY STATE WHERE THERE ARE DEMOCRATS

Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—without a shred of concern for the damage done to those outside the nomenklatura.

__________________

The Sovietization of American Life

Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology,

a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—

without a shred of concern for the damage done

to those outside the nomenklatura.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

June 5, 2022

One day historians will look back at the period beginning with the COVID lockdowns of spring 2020 through the midterm elections of 2022 to understand how America for over two years lost its collective mind and turned into something unrecognizable and antithetical to its founding principles.

Sovietization” is perhaps the best diagnosis of the pathology. It refers to the subordination of policy, expression, popular culture, and even thought to ideological mandates. Ultimately such regimentation destroys a state since dogma wars with and defeats meritocracy, creativity, and freedom. 

The American Commissariat

Experts become sycophantic. They mortgage their experience and talent to ideology—to the point where society itself regresses. 

The law is no longer blind and disinterested but adjudicates indictment, prosecution, verdict, and punishment on the ideology of the accused. Eric Holder is held in contempt of Congress and smiles; Peter Navarro is held in contempt of Congress and is hauled off in cuffs and leg irons. James Clapper and John Brennan lied under oath to Congress—and were rewarded with television contracts; Roger Stone did the same and a SWAT team showed up at his home. Andrew McCabe made false statements to federal investigators and was exempt. A set-up George Papadopoulos went to prison for a similar charge. So goes the new American commissariat.

Examine California and ask a series of simple questions. 

Why does the state that formerly served as a model to the nation regarding transportation now suffer inferior freeways while its multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project remains an utter boondoggle and failure? 

Why was its safe and critically needed last-remaining nuclear power plant scheduled for shutdown (and only recently reversed) as the state faced summer brownouts? 

Why did its forests go up in smoke predictably each summer, as its timber industry and the century-old science of forest management all but disappeared from the state?

Why do the state’s criminals so often evade indictment, and if convicted are often not incarcerated—or are quickly paroled? 

Why are its schools’ test scores dismal, its gasoline the nation’s highest-priced, and the streets of its major cities fetid and dangerous—in a fashion not true 50 years ago or elsewhere today?

In a word, the one-party state is Sovietized. Public policy is no longer empirical but subservient to green, diversity, equity, and inclusion dogmas—and detached from the reality of daily middle-class existence. Decline is ensured once ideology governs problem-solving rather than time-tested and successful policymaking.

Similarly, the common denominator in Joe Biden’s two years of colossal failures is Soviet-like edicts of equity, climate change, and neo-socialist redistribution that have ensured (for the non-elite, in any event) soaring inflation, unaffordable energy, rampant crime, and catastrophic illegal immigration. Playing the role of Pravda, Biden and his team simply denied things were bad, relabeled failure as success, and attacked his predecessor and critics as various sorts of counterrevolutionaries.

Biden rejected commonsense, bipartisan policies that in the past kept inflation low, energy affordable, crime controlled, and the border manageable. Instead, he superimposed leftist dogma on every decision, whose ideological purity, not real-life consequences for millions, was considered the measure of success.

The Caving of Expertise

Entire professions have now nearly been lost to radical progressive ideology.

Do we remember those stellar economists who swore at a time of Biden’s vast government borrowing, increases in the monetary supply, incentivizing labor non-participation, and supply chain interruptions that there was no threat of inflation? Were they adherents of ideological “modern monetary theory”? Did they ignore their training and experience in fealty to progressive creeds?

What about the Stanford doctors who signed a groupthink letter attacking their former colleague, Dr. Scott Atlas, because he questioned the orthodoxies of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the state bureaucracies—who we now know hid their involvement with channeling funding to deadly gain-of-function research in Wuhan? Did they reject his views on empirical grounds and welcome a give-and-take shared inquiry—or simply wish to silence an ideological outlier and advisor to a despised counterrevolutionary?

Or how about the 50 retired intelligence “experts” who swore that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not genuine but likely Russian disinformation? Did they rely on hundreds of years of collective expertise to adjudicate the laptop or did they simply wish to be rewarded with something comparable to a “Hero of Woke America” award?

Or what about the 1,000 medical “professionals” who claimed violating quarantine and protective protocols for Black Lives Matter demonstrations was vital for the mental health of the protestors? Or the Princeton creators of a video identifying Jonathan Katz as a sort of public enemy for the crime of stating that racial discrimination of any sort was toxic?

Career Advancement, Cowardice, and Membership in the Club

There can be no expertise under Sovietization; everything and everyone serves ideology. Our military—especially its four-star generals, current and retired—parroted perceived ideologically correct thought. Repeating party lines about diversity, white supremacy, and climate change are far more relevant for career advancement than proof of prior effective military leadership in battle. 

The ultimate trajectory of a woke military was the fatal disgrace in Afghanistan. Ideologues in uniform kept claiming that the humiliating skedaddle was a logistical success and that misguided bombs that killed innocents were called a “righteous strike.” Afghanistan all summer of 2021 was to be Joe Biden’s successful model of a graduated withdrawal in time for a 20th-anniversary commemoration of 9/11—until it suddenly wasn’t.

Pentagon decision-making increasingly privileges race, gender, sexuality, and green goals over traditional military lethality—a fact known to all who are up for promotion, retention, or disciplinary action.

How predictable it was that the United States fled Kabul, abandoning not just billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to terrorists, but also with Pride flags flying, George Floyd murals on public walls, and gender studies initiatives being carried out in the military ranks. Ask yourself: if a general during the Afghanistan debacle had brilliantly organized a sustainable and defensible corridor around Bagram Airfield but was known to be skeptical of Pentagon efforts to address climate change and diversity would he be praised or reviled?

The elite universities in their single-minded pursuit of wokeness are ironically doing America a great favor. For a long time, their success was due to an American fetishization of brand names. But now, most privately accept that a BA from Princeton or Harvard is no longer an indication of acquired knowledge, mastery of empiricism, or predictive of inductive thinking over deductive dogmatism. 

Instead, we now understand, that various lettered certificates serve as stamps for career advancement—proof either of earlier high-school achievement that merely won the bearer admission to the select, or confirmation that the graduate possesses the proper wealth, contacts, athletic ability, race, gender, or sexuality to be invited to the club.

Universities’ abandonment of test scores and diminution of grades—replaced by “community service” and race, gender, and sexuality criteria—has simply clarified the bankruptcy of the entire higher education industry. 

Our “diversity statements” required for hiring at many universities are becoming comparable to Soviet certifications of proper Marxist-Leninist fidelity. Like the children of Soviet Party apparatchiks, privileged university students now openly attack faculty whose reading requirements or lectures supposedly exude scents of “colonialism” or “imperialism” or “white supremacy.”

Faculty increasingly fear offering merit evaluation, in terror that diversity commissars might detect in their grading an absence of reparatory race or gender appraisals. The result is still more public cynicism about higher education because it is apparent that the goal is to graduate with a stamp from Yale or Stanford that ensures prestige, success, and ideological correctness—on the supposition that few will ever worry exactly what or how one did while enrolled.

We have our own Emmanuel Goldsteins who, we are told, deserve our three minutes of hate for counterrevolutionary thought and practice. Donald Trump earned the enmity of the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the IRS. Now Elon Musk and his companies are suddenly the targets of the progressive state, including repartees from the president himself. To vent, the popular Soviet directs its collective enmity at a Dave Chappelle or Bill Maher, progressives who exhibit the occasional counterrevolutionary heresy.

Cabinet secretaries ignore their duties—somewhat understandable given their resumes never explained their appointments. What binds Pete Buttigieg, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Jennifer Granholm is not expertise in transportation, border security, or energy independence but allegiance to an entire menu of woke policies that are often antithetical to their job descriptions.

“Diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” started as mandated proportional representation as defined by the state allotting spoils of coveted admissions, hiring, honors, and career advancement by race and gender percentages in the general population. The subtext was that federal and state governments imported and incorporated largely academic theories that alleged any disequilibrium was due to bias. 

More specifically, racial and sexual prejudices were to be exposed and punished by morally superior castes—in politics, the bureaucracy, and the courts. There was never any interest in detailing how particular individuals were personally harmed by the system or by the “other,” which explains the Left’s abhorrence of racially blind, class-based criteria to establish justified need.

Reparations

In the last five years, American Sovietization has descended into reparatory representation. Due to prior collective culpability of whites, heterosexuals, and males, marginalized self-defined groups of victims must now be “overrepresented” in admissions, hiring, and visibility in popular culture 

As the Soviets and Maoists discovered—and as was true of the Jacobins, National Socialists, and cultural Marxists—once-radical ideology defines success, then life, in general, becomes anti-meritocratic. The public privately equates awards and recognition with political fealty, not actual achievement.

Were recent Netflix productions reflections of merit or ideological criteria governing race and gender? Do the Emmys, Tonys, or Oscars convey recognition of talent, or adherence to progressive agendas of diversity, equity, and inclusion? Does a Pulitzer Prize, a Ford Foundation grant, or a MacArthur award denote talent and achievement or more often promote diversity, equity, and inclusion narratives?

Consequences of Failing Up

Where does woke Sovietization end once accountability vanishes and ideology masks incompetence and malfeasance?

We are starting to see the final denouement with missing baby formula, epidemics of shootings and hate crimes, train-robbings reminiscent of the Wild West in Los Angeles, Tombstonesque shoot-up Saturday nights in Chicago, spiking electricity rates and brownouts, $7 a gallon diesel fuel, unaffordable and scarce meat, and entire industries from air travel to home construction that simply no longer work. 

Everyone knows that the status of our homeless population in Los Angeles or San Francisco is medieval, dangerous, and unhealthy. And everyone knows that any serious attempt to remedy the situation would cause one to be labeled an apostate, counterrevolutionary, and enemy of the people. So, like good Eastern Europeans of the Warsaw Pact in the 1960s, we mutter one thing under our breath and nod another publicly.

Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—without a shred of concern for the damage done to those outside the nomenklatura.

___________________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—without a shred of concern for the damage done to those outside the nomenklatura.

FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF CORRUPTION IN THE CHURCH

John Quinn, the late archbishop of San Francisco, was one of the most liberal prelates in the post-Vatican II Church in America. A few years before he died, he told a group of priests that Pope Francis had blessed his progressive vision for the Church. Quinn recounted an accidental meeting with Jorge Bergoglio at a coffee shop in Rome shortly before his election to the papacy. Bergoglio told Quinn that he had read his book The Reform of the Papacy and supported its proposals.

Quinn’s anecdote is worth recalling in light of San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy’s recent elevation to the College of Cardinals. Ordained a priest in the archdiocese of San Francisco in 1980, McElroy was one of Quinn’s protégés. He delivered the homily at Quinn’s funeral in 2017.

The press has interpreted the Church politics at work here as a papal rebuke to doctrinaire American bishops. But it is more like a rebuke to cautiously conservative ones.

Quinn was famous for bucking the conservative direction of the Church under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. In 1992, for example, the Vatican issued a letter condemning gay adoption and a blanket extension of civil rights to homosexuals. McElroy, speaking for Quinn, made it clear to the press that the archdiocese of San Francisco would not honor the letter. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a story titled “SF Archdiocese Opposes Vatican Letter on Gay Bias Law” and quoted McElroy’s dismissal of the letter as “not binding on them.”

In 2006, McElroy defended a partnership between Catholic Charities and a gay adoption agency in Oakland — a policy that the archdiocese of San Francisco abandoned after it provoked too much controversy.

Back then, few would have predicted McElroy’s meteoric rise in the Church. But his mentorship under Quinn turned out to be decisive. Through Quinn, McElroy met a now-powerful circle of prelates, including Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, another Quinn disciple. In his funeral homily for Quinn, McElroy referred to Cupich as Quinn’s “close friend.”

Some accounts of McElroy’s elevation have noted his connection to the Theodore McCarrick scandal — that McElroy stonewalled psychotherapist Richard Sipe after he presented McElroy with evidence of McCarrick’s abuse. But none of these stories mention where McElroy learned how to overlook corruption — from his service under John Quinn who shared a residence with a credibly accused abuser in his retirement. This came out after James Jenkins, a psychologist on the archdiocesan abuse review board, expressed his outrage that “a former archbishop had any business keeping house with someone who had acknowledged on a wiretap that he had sodomized a 15-year-old boy.”

McElroy has called his elevation to the college of cardinals “stunning.” But it is not. True, he is the first cardinal from San Diego. And his elevation is a remarkable snub of Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, which traditionally gets a red hat. But McElroy’s appointment isn’t novel. It is similar to Pope Francis’s elevation of Joseph Tobin to cardinal while still serving in the obscure archdiocese of Indianapolis. Tobin was shortly thereafter sent to the much larger archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McElroy can expect a similar step up in the near future.

The press has interpreted the Church politics at work here as a papal rebuke to doctrinaire American bishops. But it is more like a rebuke to cautiously conservative ones. Gomez is hardly a fire-breathing traditionalist. Notice that he hasn’t endorsed Archbishop Cordileone’s Communion ban on Nancy Pelosi. What appears to have put Gomez in bad odor with the Vatican is that he merely raised the issue of Joe Biden and Communion and hinted that Biden should voluntarily refrain from it. The battle lines in the Church have moved so far to the left that now a Gomez or an Archbishop Charles Chaput (who was similarly passed over for cardinal before he retired, even though he led the Church in Philadelphia, another large archdiocese that customarily gets a red hat) is seen as an outlandish conservative. This alone tells us much about the direction of the Church.

After the news of McElroy’s elevation, Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporterwrote excitedly, “The Holy Father has sent an unmistakable sign: Gomez leads the largest archdiocese in the country, he is the president of the conference, and he is McElroy’s Metropolitan Archbishop.… By naming one of Gomez’s suffragans as cardinal, and not Gomez himself, the pope has rendered an unmistakable sign of the kind of episcopal leadership he is seeking. An unmistakable sign.” Such intense gloating speaks to the ambitions of the Catholic left, which seeks to wipe out not only the traditionalists in the Church but also go-slow conservatives in the mold of Gomez. The modernists can’t rest until every member of the Church is a full-blown modernist.

In his waning days, John Quinn was seen by some as a passé figure — the voice of an exhausted and failed theology. And few paid attention to his bragging about running into an approving Bergoglio in Rome. But in retrospect it revealed much about the Church’s direction and helps explain his acolyte’s ascent to the top of it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

PRO-ABORTION BIDEN FLAUNTS HIS APOSTASY

Joe Biden Invites Abortion Activists to the White House to Celebrate Killing Babies in Abortions

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   Jun 6, 2022   |   1:14PM   |  Washington, DC

https://www.facebook.com/v2.5/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df354b65364d543c%26domain%3Dwww.lifenews.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifenews.com%252Ff1f302765a43046%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=67&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2022%2F06%2F06%2Fjoe-biden-invites-abortion-activists-to-the-white-house-to-celebrate-killing-babies-in-abortions%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=box_count35

Joe Biden’s administration honored a pro-abortion student group with an invitation to the White House this week, the latest of the Democrat leader’s many actions to promote the killing of unborn babies in abortions.

Fox News first reported about the invitation Monday after a parents’ rights group discovered it on an online messaging forum through Generation Ratify, a pro-abortion group that recruits students to be abortion activists.

“We are invited to the White House!” Generation Ratify executive director Rosie Couture wrote in the Slack message, according to the report. “A couple of days ago I received an invitation to an in-person meeting on the importance of abortion access and other reproductive care for young people with the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Gender Policy Council.”

Couture’s group recently encouraged students to hold school walk-outs to protest the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this summer. Many expect the high court will overturn Roe after a leaked draft shows the majority ruling against the 1973 abortion decision. If that happens, states will be allowed to protect unborn babies again, and experts predict as many as 26 will do so.

The Biden administration repeatedly has criticized the potential ruling, warning that “the rights of all Americans are at risk” if women are no longer allowed to have abortions. Vice President Kamala Harris also honored abortionists at a virtual meeting at the White House two weeks ago in response to the leak.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us stand against Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Parents’ rights group Parents Defending Education, which alerted Fox News to the invitation message, said the Biden administration should focus on improving basic education, not student political activism.

“National literacy rates are at historic lows in the wake of the pandemic, and many children lost an entire year of learning,” group president Nicole Neily told Fox News. “Instead of solving the problem, the Biden administration celebrates activists who encourage kids to skip school and attend protests. We need an administration focused on education, not activism.”

Generation Action targets young people, especially high school students, by encouraging them to hold pro-abortion protests, contact politicians about legislation and more.

After one recent protest, a New Jersey school district disciplined 14 high school students after a pro-life classmate was attacked, according to the Catholic News Agency. It is not clear if Generation Action was involved in organizing the New Jersey protest, but it advertised dozens of others at high schools across the country in mid-May.

“With unconstitutional, anti-abortion legislation sweeping state legislatures and a Supreme Court that refuses to uphold the Constitution, young people are being stripped of their right to healthcare and bodily autonomy,” the group states on its website. “We need a mass youth mobilization to defend and expand our access to abortion.”

On its website, the group lists a couple dozen chapters across the United States.

The White House has not confirmed its invitation to Generation Action, according to Fox News.

The Biden administration’s pro-abortion goals do not represent most Americans’ beliefs. Polls consistently show that most Americans support strong legal protections for unborn babies – more than what Roe allows. LifeNews highlighted 11 recent polls here. A new Rasmussen poll shows more Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned (48 percent) than want the ruling to remain in place (45 percent).

Since Roe v. Wade, about 63 million unborn babies and hundreds of mothers have died in supposedly “safe, legal” abortions. The 1973 ruling forces states to legalize the killing of unborn babies in abortions up to viability and allows states to legalize abortions up to birth.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Mississippi abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health sometime this summer, likely the end of June.

https://www.facebook.com/v2.5/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df273204db312f32%26domain%3Dwww.lifenews.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifenews.com%252Ff1f302765a43046%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=67&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2F2022%2F06%2F06%2Fjoe-biden-invites-abortion-activists-to-the-white-house-to-celebrate-killing-babies-in-abortions%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=box_count35

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on PRO-ABORTION BIDEN FLAUNTS HIS APOSTASY

THE HORROR! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Robert McElroy’s Rise to the College of Cardinals – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Inbox

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

In the 2024 presidential election, a Republican nominee can win who convincingly promises the electorate a secure border, a pathway to a balanced budget, energy independence, a crackdown on crime, and a strong, nonpolitical military with a commitment to missile defense of the Nation.

Trumpology

The path to the 2024 presidential election

will be shaped entirely by how things look for

Donald Trump in the wake of the 2022 midterms.

By Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

June 1, 2022

Donald Trump has signaled he will announce his presidential intentions after the November midterm elections. Yet his record of endorsements is quite mixed. By the sheer number of winning primary candidates his stamp of approval is impressive, but in a few of the most important races, not so much. 

The disaster that is the Biden Administration has been a godsend for Trump. Had Biden simply plagiarized the successful Trump agenda, there would have followed no border disaster, no energy crisis, no hyperinflation, and no disastrous flight from Afghanistan. 

Had Biden followed through on his “unity” rhetoric, he could have lorded over Trump’s successful record as his own, while contrasting his Uncle-Joe ecumenicalism with supposed Trump’s polarization. 

Of course, serious people knew from the utterly impossible start. A cognitively challenged Biden was a captive of ideologues. Thus, he was bound to pursue an extremist agenda that could only end as it now has—in disaster and record low polls. 

Still, how ironic that the Biden catastrophe revived a Trump candidacy. Biden likely will cause the Democrats to lose Congress. His pick of a dismal Kamala Harris as vice president has likely ensured, for now, fewer viable Democratic presidential candidates in 2024. 

So, will Trump run? 

Some logic might dictate that Trump not try a second campaign. He would be 79. The recent record of doddering septuagenarian and octogenarian politicians—Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein—has warned Americans that one’s late 70s certainly are not, as the Baby Boomer generation may try to hype, the “new 50s.” 

In addition, Trump’s old and new business ventures would take further and greater hits. 

His family would again be targeted and unfairly maligned. 

An otherwise nihilist progressive and media agenda would reawaken solely to destroy Donald Trump—not his policies against which the Left has offered nothing of substance. 

The Trump MAGA legacy is now largely institutionalized. 

All Republican candidates will run on secure borders, energy independence, deregulation, Jacksonian foreign policy, a populist, middle-class, nationalism, and deterrence against China—albeit with a much-needed new emphasis on destructive deficit spending. 

Candidates like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) are all close with or have worked for Trump and would, more or less, carry through the Trump agenda. 

The Trump record itself between 2017 and 2021 would be assessed more positively, especially in comparison to what preceded and followed it, and with Trump in retirement. 

On the other hand, in 2016 the Republican field was also hailed as a dream team. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was acclaimed as the hands-on pro who ran a purple state, battling successfully public-employee unions and left-wing monied special interests. 

We know how that field ended. 

Trump supporters would counter that a wiser Trump would hit the ground running. He would likely not recruit disloyal outliers or Republican Party apparatchiks. 

Much less would he trust the ossified hierarchy of the FBI, CIA, DIA, CDC, NIH, or any of the other alphabetic, deep-state soups. 

The Trump base would add that a non-Trump Trump candidate would never endure, much less brawl against, left-wing madness. They would claim that avoiding cul-de-sac spats while doubling down on the Trump agenda sounds nice—in the fashion that, theoretically, there could be sunshine without the sun. 

In the end, none of the above considerations will likely matter.

Instead, the outcome of the midterms will tell a lot. A clear but not overwhelming Republican win will likely discourage Trump and empower his critics. 

But a historic blowout will spur Trump. In the end, even if most Republicans would prefer he not run, they will likely vote for him over the hard-left alternative. 

As for the Democratic landscape, it will not be the case that Joe Biden may choose to run. He will not run because the decision will not be his. 

Even if he manages to last another two years in office, Democratic grandees know his cognitive faculties are eroding rapidly. They read polls and know what his noncompos mentis optics have done to their party. 

These same interests are just as terrified of Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Those two believe that the Biden disaster was not due to his embrace of hard socialism, but to his insufficient embrace of socialism.

Given the poverty of alternatives, all sorts of names will arise, from Mike Bloomberg-like billionaires and Michelle Obama to most of those dismal 2020 primary retreads. 

In the end, a Republican nominee can win who convincingly promises a secure border, a pathway to a balanced budget, energy independence, a crackdown on crime, and a strong, nonpolitical military with a commitment to missile defense. 

And the nominee would have to do all that neither with gratuitous insults nor playing by wishy-washy Marquess of Queensberry rules against those whose toxic agendas here and abroad have created the present disaster.

___________________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on In the 2024 presidential election, a Republican nominee can win who convincingly promises the electorate a secure border, a pathway to a balanced budget, energy independence, a crackdown on crime, and a strong, nonpolitical military with a commitment to missile defense of the Nation.