_______________________________

Supreme Court Injustice

By: Judd Garrett

Objectivity is the Objective

February 2, 2022

Joe Biden recently stated that two main criteria he will be using to choose who to nominate to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer are “black” and“woman”. Not only on the surface is Biden’s pledge racist and sexist, but it is also both unconstitutional, and a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which clearly states that it is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire any individual because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, which is what Joe Biden is doing to all non-black, non-woman candidates. A black woman may very well be the best and most qualified candidate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, but this is not the process in which we go about finding that out. Joe Biden has come right out and said, he is rigging this process.

This should not be a surprise because Joe Biden has already done this. During the Democrat primary, Biden stated that he would use the same two criteria, “black” and“woman” when choosing who would be his running mate. How has this worked out for him? He chose Kamala Harris, who has been an utter disaster in her role. Her primary assignment as Vice President has been the “Border Czar”, and under her watch, over two million illegal immigrants have entered our country through the southern border. She has yet to visit the border to see for herself the chaos that is going on down there. Thousands of illegal migrants have died on their journey to the United States as a result of Biden’s policies. Record amounts of fentanyl have crossed the border which has killed a record number of American citizens. MS-13 gang members, known felons, and terrorists have crossed the southern border into the United States in the last 12 months. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the border situation is “worse now than it, frankly, has been in at least 20 years, if not ever.” Choosing Kamala Harris for the optics has damaged our country, race relations, Kamala Harris, and all black women. 

But Joe Biden has used this same type of criteria to fill out his entire administration. When selecting his Cabinet, Biden said that “my cabinet, my administration will look like the country” which means he will select his nominees based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg was not selected because he was the most qualified or the most experienced candidate; he was chosen because he was going to be the first gay cabinet Secretary. And what has happened? We are suffering through an unprecedented supply chain crisis with shipping containers being lost or stolen from docks, and a backlog of cargo ships spreading up and down the West Coast.

I’m not claiming that a gay person cannot effectively do the job of Secretary of Transportation. I’m sure there are plenty of smart, intelligent, qualified gay people. The problem is that Pete Buttigieg is not one of them. But when your primary criteria for hiring someone is not how smart or qualified, they are, but what their sexual orientation is, then you end up with Pete Buttigieg and a massive supply chain crisis. Buttigieg believes that the biggest issue facing our transportation department is “racist roads”. This is what has happened with many of Biden’s cabinet selections because he put skin color or gender or lifestyle as a higher priority than intelligence and qualifications. 

Janet Yellen has struggled in her role as Secretary of the Treasury. We have had major increases in inflation, devaluation of the dollar, and problems in regulating cryptocurrency. She has stated one of her primary concerns is racial wealth equity. All this leads to the obvious question, does she have that job because of her qualifications or because of her gender? Biden’s nomination to Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin oversaw our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan while he was purging soldiers with right-leaning political positions from the Armed Forces and teaching Critical Race Theory to our soldiers. It begs the question, does Lloyd Austin have his job because of how qualified he is or because of diversity?

I am only asking these questions because Joe Biden has said he selected his cabinet based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. So, it is only logical to questions the qualifications of his selections. How has all this worked out for him? Right now, Joe Biden’s approval rating is at historic lows, and disapproval rating at historic highs, mainly because the people he has surrounded himself with were put in their position based on a criterion other than being the smartest and most qualified. 

It is easier to see Biden doing this type of thing with the Vice President or Cabinet positions because those are political nominations. The Supreme Court is supposed to be an apolitical body. And knowledge of the Constitution which is the primary qualification of a Supreme Court Justice transcends race, gender, or lifestyle. It is an objective exercise, separate from the subjectivity which accompanies political decisions, personal histories, and social categories. A person’s race, gender, or lifestyle should not be used to inform a Supreme Court Justices’ decision on the constitutionality of a law or action. If there is any place in our government where the decision-makers must be colorblind, gender-blind, lifestyle-blind, it is the Supreme Court making decisions of constitutionality. The Constitution was written to provide a consistent framework that treats all citizens equally regardless of race, gender or lifestyle. So, selecting a justice to sit on the court based primarily on her gender and race, not on knowledge and intelligence, to get that gender and race’s perspective works directly against the purpose and vision of the court and the Constitution.

If a Justice’s fidelity to the Constitution is the main priority of the job, then stating the person has to be a certain race or gender cannot be a priority, but if it is, then the nominee’s fidelity to the constitution becomes compromised. Not only does nominating a justice based on gender and race undercut the credibility of the court, but it also calls into question the credibility of the justice his/her self. I would be saying the same thing if a President said that the primary criteria for nominating a justice were white and male. The President would be shrinking the pool of qualified candidates significantly, and the chances we would be getting the best most qualified justice would be greatly reduced. 

We are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States of America. These nine people are supposed to be the nine best legal minds and scholars in our country – the nine best, not any nine that are qualified of a certain race and gender. Since black females only make up 7% of our population, eliminating 93% of the possible candidates, statistically speaking, means that there is a very good chance that Joe Biden will not be nominating the best legal mind and scholar that is available. This is not to say that a black woman could not be the best legal mind and scholar out there, but we would only know she was the best only if she were compared to all available legal minds and scholars. But since Joe Biden told us from the onset that he is narrowing his search to only 7% of the population, it is fair to question if the person he eventually nominates is the best available candidate for this very important position.

It is misguided to argue that we need to have a black woman on the Supreme Court because she will provide a different perspective to the court. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to hear cases and determine the constitutionality of certain laws or actions based on knowledge of the Constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent, not to bring their personal perspective or their life history as a context to interpret the Constitution. The job should be extremely forensic. There should be very little scope to bring in your personal feelings or life history into the judging process because you would also bring your personal biases. 

If she is being brought on to the court to provide a black woman’s perspective, then will this new justice always lean toward or side with the minority group in the cases that she hears? Will she always lean toward or side with the woman? If the answer is, ‘no’, she will not be influenced by the side of women or minorities in the cases she hears, that she will look beyond race and gender which is what she is supposed to do, then you are negating the very reason why Joe Biden has limited his pool of candidates to a black and woman in the first place. But if she is indeed going to allow her race and gender to influence her decisions, she will be violating the impartiality needed to be a Supreme Court Justice.  

The goal is to nominate the most qualified candidate of all people. If you were having open-heart surgery, would you limit your search for the best, most qualified doctor out of 7% of the population, or would you search to find the best doctor out of 100% of the population? You are most likely to find the most qualified doctor by looking at 100% of the doctors, and we are most likely to find the most qualified Supreme Court Justice by looking at 100% of the candidates, and a black woman may very well end up being the best choice, but we won’t know it unless the only criteria used to nominate her is the most qualified candidate available.

___________________________________________________

Racism Is the Hallmark

of Biden’s SCOTUS Pick

The president’s promise to nominate

a black woman to the Supreme Court

is the worst of political panders.

By Douglas Andrews

The Patriot Post

January 28, 2022

Now that Joe Biden has promised to ignore any and all potential Supreme Court nominees not equipped with black skin and a vagina, we thought we’d examine both the awfulness and the illegality of that promise.

First things first, though: The Democrats are desperate to paint Republicans as opposed to seeing a black woman on the Supreme Court. Indeed, CNN analyst and former Bill Clinton mouthpiece Joe Lockhart gave the game away yesterday when he said, “Ahead of the midterms, I look forward to watching every Republican senator oppose the first black woman to the Supreme Court.”

We hate to disappoint Joe and his fellow Demo race-baiters, but that’s not going to happen.

Republicans are not and never have been opposed to the presence of a well-qualified black woman on the High Court. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for “Jungle” Joe Biden, the “You Ain’t Black” Kid, the lickspittle of old Southern segregationists, the guy who in 2003 filibustered George W. Bush’s nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court, to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

The DC Circuit is universally regarded as the nation’s second-most influential court, and it’s also the primary stepping stone for eventual elevation to the Supreme Court. Two years later, in 2005, Brown was finally confirmed to the DC Circuit, but that was just one month before Bush nominated Brown’s DC Circuit colleague, John Roberts, to the Supreme Court.

So, had Joe Biden not filibustered her original nomination, Judge Janice Rogers Brown might have become the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. And here we thought Biden was against the filibuster, that vile relic of the Jim Crow South.

In fairness to Biden, maybe he’s against it for all instances except denying well-qualified black women a spot on the federal bench. Or maybe ol’ Scranton Joe is just against black judges generally, unless he’s trying to buy votes or coax out a crucial presidential primary endorsement. After all, as pundit Benny Johnson points out, “The only black person serving on the Supreme Court today was personally attacked, defamed, and slandered by Joe Biden before he voted AGAINST him.”

On second thought, then, we can scrap the aforementioned fairness. And Biden and his fellow hypocrites can spare us the sanctimony. We wish him well in finding a nominee who is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”

We’ll say this, though: The Democrats have shown exquisite timing in kicking Justice Stephen Breyer to the curb and demanding that a black woman replace him. As columnist Josh Hammer points out:

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally granted a writ of certiorari in two now-consolidated affirmative action cases. … But by Wednesday afternoon, Monday’s propitious step forward toward an America no longer obsessed with race and identity politics was abruptly undermined by a severe step backward toward a race-centric polity. … President Joe Biden affirmed that he intends to fulfill his 2020 campaign promise to nominate a Black woman — not a Black man, not a Hispanic woman, but specifically a Black woman — to replace the retiring Jewish male justice.

Not even a superbly qualified Indian American jurist like Sri Srinivasan needs apply, as libertarian Georgetown University law professor Ilya Shapiro somewhat inartfully pointed out before begging forgiveness.

As for conducting such a racially exclusionary federal job search, columnist Gary Bauer notes: 

“Ironically, it is against federal law to begin a job search by announcing that only people of a certain race will be considered and that all people of other races will be rejected. The Supreme Court itself has been clear on that matter. As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in the 1978 Bakke case, ‘Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.’”

Of course, this racist lawlessness is an inconvenient truth that Biden and his fellow Democrats will no doubt ignore.

*UPDATE: *Some on the Left have pointed to Ronald Reagan’s 1981 nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court as the precedent for Biden’s promise to nominate a black woman. But they aren’t the same. Biden said: “I’ve made no decision except one … [This] person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” Whereas Reagan said: “I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find.”

So Reagan said “one of my vacancies,” not “this vacancy,” and, as Jonathan Turley points out, Reagan didn’t exclude all non-female candidates: “One of the leading contenders was considered Judge Lawrence Pierce, an African American trial court judge. Newsweek and other media sites listed an array of males being actively considered including Robert Bork, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Philip B. Kurland, and Edwin Meese III.”

___________________________________________________

COVID ‘Psycho-Pandemic’ a ‘Global Plan’ to Bring ‘Reduction of the World population’: Archbishop Vigano

ByJon Fleetwood

10 hours ago

Some Catholic organizations are “denying not only the evidence of the facts but also the existence of a global plan that has deliberately caused this psycho-pandemic in order to bring about a ruthless reduction of the world population (especially the elderly) and impose forms of control and restriction of the natural rights of citizens.”

QUICK FACTS:

• Italian archbishop Carlos Maria Vigano shared a letter online that he wrote to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF).
• In the letter, Vigano characterized Covid-19 vaccine campaigns as “criminal” and stemming from a “globalist vulgate.”
• The archbishop also accused the Vatican of towing this globalist vaccine agenda “without taking even the slightest account of the serious critiques of the so-called vaccines.”
• He went on to criticize the Pontifical Academy for Life—a Roman Catholic establishment focusing on medical ethics—for promoting the Covid-19 vaccine as “an act of love and a moral duty” while “incontrovertibly denying not only the evidence of the facts but also the existence of a global plan that has deliberately caused this psycho-pandemic in order to bring about a ruthless reduction of the world population (especially the elderly) and impose forms of control and restriction of the natural rights of citizens,” writes Vigano.
• Archbishop also argues the “deep Church” has become “subservient to the deep state” in a “New World Order” composed of a “complex network of complicity between the globalist oligarchy, the financial power of the pharmaceutical companies, international institutions and national governments all over the world.”
• He also refers to the Covid-19 inoculation as a “gene serum” and not “a real vaccine” because its “effectiveness in preventing contagion is zero.”
• “COVID is not a fatal disease,” says Vigano, “if treated promptly.”
• “But, in order for the truth to triumph and the guilty to be condemned, it is necessary to open our eyes, recognizing the crisis of authority both at the political and religious levels.”

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=AmericanFaithM1&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1488473212631625729&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Famericanfaith.com%2Fcovid-psycho-pandemic-a-global-plan-to-bring-reduction-of-the-world-population-archbishop-vigano%2F&sessionId=fc3169751883748bc0faff95666aa6e92b148cc9&siteScreenName=AmericanFaithM1&theme=light&widgetsVersion=0a8eea3%3A1643743420422&width=550px

WHAT ELSE ARCHBISHOP VIGANO’S LETTER SAID:

“[High-ranking members of the Catholic Church] who betray their mandate, who are almost always just as corrupt in doctrine as they are in morals, have occupied the Church of Christ in order to transform Her into a state church, a zealous servant of the New World Order and apostate in its faith. What was an infiltration up until a few decades ago has been transformed into a true and proper invasion in all of the Roman Dicasteries and in the peripheral organs of the Holy See,” writes Vigano.

“The corruption of the pharmaceutical industry, although it is well known, is deliberately ignored, because BigPharma is one of the principal allies of the elite in the pursuit of the Great Reset,” he writes elsewhere in the letter. “The Bergoglian church is also a supporter of the New World Order, and the crimes committed under the pretext of the pandemic are culpably silenced by Bergoglio because he hopes to gain political advantage. This coup will be thwarted, and along with it the sect of heretics and corrupt men that now occupies the Vatican will inexorably collapse.”

Archbishop Vigano concludes, “But in order for the truth to triumph and the guilty to be condemned, it is necessary to open our eyes, recognizing the crisis of authority both at the political and religious levels: both of these, having denied their origin in God the Creator, Lord, and Redeemer, have lost their legitimacy, and as a result they have also lost the obligation on the part of citizens and the faithful to obey them. Let us pray therefore that both civil and ecclesiastical rulers may understand that only by returning to God and His Law will they be able to merit the respect that today it is a duty to deny them. And may the Lord protect and give courage to those who oppose the kingdom of Satan on earth.”

READ THE FULL LETTER:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/556451843/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2xoKVnEKuee6PDgBBtqS

Letter from Archbishop Viga… by Jim Hoft

BACKGROUND:

• Reducing the world population through vaccines was proposed by Bill Gates during a TedTalk in which he argued that vaccines can be used to help “lower” the number of human beings on earth by “10 or 15 percent.” “First, we’ve got population,” Gates said to the audience. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent” (start video below at about 2:30 for context).
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is an official partner with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the globalist (here) organization that created the Great Reset agenda, mentioned in Vigano’s letter.
• Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are official WEF partners as well.

https://embed.ted.com/talks/lang/en/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero

• Vigano was elected archbishop on April 3, 1992.
• He was consecrated and made Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana on April 26, 1992.
• He served as Secretary General of the Governorate of the Vatican City State, and was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to the United States by Pope Benedict XVI.

Speaking to the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net Feb. 1, the German cardinal noted how those who mocked Cardinal Ratzinger as the “Panzerkardinal” for his tenacity in upholding the Church’s doctrine as CDF prefect, now criticize him for his lack of harshness in dealing with abuse cases, especially given his record of bringing neglected ecclesiastical penal law back into force.

He said the question of whether then-Archbishop Ratzinger took part in the meeting in 1980 in whole or in part was “not decisive” to the handling of the case. “It is just perfidious self-righteousness to throw the attendance list over his head and cynically hold it up to him like a trophy,” Cardinal Müller said. 

“Every day I meet many people from different nations who ask me how it is possible that in Germany a pope from their homeland is called a liar,” he said. “In view of these events one can only be ashamed to be a German, above all because so many people who are of good will fall for the anti-Catholic propaganda.”

   

‘Schülerkreis’ Comes to the Defense of Benedict XVI

Some have criticized Benedict following the publication of a report that examined his time as archbishop of Munich-Freising, but others have rallied to Benedict’s defense.

Edward Pentin BlogsFebruary 2, 2022

ROME — New and old members of Benedict XVI’s “schülerkreis” — a theological discussion group Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger founded in 1978 for his former students — have come to the defense of the Pope Emeritus following a recent report that faulted him for his handling of abuse cases when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977-1982.

The members noted in a Jan. 31 statement that since the Jan. 20 publication of the report by a Munich law firm on the handling of abuse cases in the southern German archdiocese from 1949 to 2019, “many have strongly criticized” the former pope “and even accused him of lying.”

“This discredits not only his person and office,” the scholars wrote, “but also his work as a priest and his great theological accomplishments.” 

“The Neuer Schülerkreis Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, whose members are inspired in their own writings by his theological works and want to carry on this legacy, is very keen to express its solidarity with its namesake also in this difficult situation,” they wrote. 

The long-awaited report criticized the retired German pope’s handling of four casesduring his time in charge of the southern German archdiocese as well the treatment of abuse cases by his successors, Cardinal Friedrich Wetter and Cardinal Reinhard Marx, whom the report says handled 21 and two cases, respectively.

Benedict XVI, who strongly denies cover-up allegations, sent 82 pages of observations to investigators compiling the report. Four days after the report’s publication, he apologized for mistakenly saying that he did not attend a disputed meeting in 1980 while serving as archbishop of Munich and Freising.

The former pope had initially told investigators that he was not present at a meeting of archdiocesan officials on Jan. 15, 1980, that concerned the handling of an abuse case. His personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, said the error was due to “the editing of his statement,” was “not done out of bad faith” and that he would explain how it came about in a forthcoming statement. 

In their Jan. 31 statement, signed by three members of the original “schülerkreis” and two members of the board of the “Neuer Schülerkreis” that Benedict founded in 2008, the scholars drew attention to Benedict XVI’s achievements in fighting against clergy sexual abuse both as pope and as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

As prefect, they wrote, he set about “combating and coming to terms with abuse in the Church and pushed through new decisive measures, which he developed further as pope. 

“In doing so, he repeatedly sought, and with great sensitivity, meetings with those affected by abuse, especially during his trips abroad, and has left no doubt about how much he is ashamed of the crimes in the Catholic Church,” they added. 

The statement’s signatories, who included Irish Divine Word Missionary Father Vincent Twomey — one of  Professor Ratzinger’s first “schülerkreis” students — recommended that those who wished to know more about the Pope Emeritus’ approach to the abuse crisis should read Benedict’s “sensitive letter to the Catholics of Ireland of March 19, 2010.”They also recommended reading a German-language dossier that summarizes his advocacy against abuse, compiled by the charitable arm of the Catholic German newspaper, Die Tagespost, as well as further references found on the Neuer Schülerkreis website. 

“In personal encounters with Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, we have been able to experience again and again how much he has remained faithful to his chosen motto ‘co-worker of the truth’ in all his actions,” they added. “For this we are grateful to him.”

Since 2008, the group of former students of Joseph Ratzinger have met annually in late summer at the pope’s traditional summer residence in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome. Younger theologians who wished to explore his theology and felt connected to his spirituality have also taken part. In 2017, the “Neuer Schülerkreis Joseph Ratzinger/Papst Benedikt XVI” became a registered association at Benedict’s request. 

Other Reactions

Although a number of critics, including German prelates and the president of the country’s bishops’ conference, have criticized Benedict following the publication of the report, others have rallied to Benedict’s defense. 

They include Andrea Tornielli, editorial director of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, who, like the “schülerkreis” members, also highlighted“very harsh norms against clerical abusers, special laws to combat pedophilia” that Benedict had put in place, as well as his sensitivity in meeting abuse victims. 

“The reconstructions contained in the Munich report, which — it must be remembered — is not a judicial inquiry nor a final sentence, will help to combat pedophilia in the Church if they are not reduced to the search for easy scapegoats and summary judgments,” Tornielli wrote.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said it was “downright grotesque” to imply Benedict was lying by attributing to him a “single event 42 years later, one of many hundreds of meetings which he may or may not have attended.”

Speaking to the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net Feb. 1, the German cardinal noted how those who mocked Cardinal Ratzinger as the “Panzerkardinal” for his tenacity in upholding the Church’s doctrine as CDF prefect, now criticize him for his lack of harshness in dealing with abuse cases, especially given his record of bringing neglected ecclesiastical penal law back into force.

He said the question of whether then-Archbishop Ratzinger took part in the meeting in 1980 in whole or in part was “not decisive” to the handling of the case. “It is just perfidious self-righteousness to throw the attendance list over his head and cynically hold it up to him like a trophy,” Cardinal Müller said. 

“Every day I meet many people from different nations who ask me how it is possible that in Germany a pope from their homeland is called a liar,” he said. “In view of these events one can only be ashamed to be a German, above all because so many people who are of good will fall for the anti-Catholic propaganda.”

Edward Pentin Edward Pentin began reporting on the Pope and the Vatican with Vatican Radio before moving on to become the Rome correspondent for EWTN’s National Catholic Register. He has also reported on the Holy See and the Catholic Church for a number of other publications including Newsweek, Newsmax, Zenit, The Catholic Herald, and The Holy Land Review, a Franciscan publication specializing in the Church and the Middle East. Edward is the author of The Next Pope: The Leading Cardinal Candidates (Sophia Institute Press, 2020) and The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (Ignatius Press, 2015). Follow him on Twitter at @edwardpentin.

Biden Fails At Prayer Breakfast EventInboxCatholic League pr@catholicleague.org via auth.ccsend.com 10:49 AM (2 hours ago)to me Biden Fails At Prayer Breakfast Event February 3, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s remarks today at the National Prayer Breakfast: It’s a good thing that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t speak first at the National Prayer Breakfast. She would have made President Biden look bad. She gave a very good speech, ending with a prayer. He personalized his address, offering a mumbling account of his interactions with congressional colleagues, past and present. Instead of rehashing old war stories, and making silly comments on how “the world is changing,” Biden could have taken the opportunity to address one of our most pressing social problems—the war on the police. He said not a word about the cop-killing spree that has become a national embarrassment. Oh, yes, he mentioned gun violence, but not in reference to police being shot. This is particularly troubling given that Biden’s next stop today is to meet in New York City with its mayor, Eric Adams. The reason for the meeting is not climate control—it’s the wave of violence that has gripped New York (and other big cities). Among the dead are those who gave their lives to protect New Yorkers. In the last week alone, St. Patrick’s Cathedral has been the site of two funerals for police officers killed in the line of duty. Cop killing is soaring in many cities, crying out for a response from elected officials. Yet the best Biden can do is talk about gun control. Guns are not responsible for mentally ill ex-cons throwing people into oncoming subway trains, or for “smash and grab” thugs who steal from department stores. They also have nothing to do with violent felons who are back on the street before the police complete their paper work. The real reason crime is increasing at an alarming rate has everything to do with the leaders of Biden’s party. Democrat-run cities, with George Soros-funded D.A.’s, have sent criminals and cops a message: social justice means less penalties for violent criminals and less interest in the welfare of the police. Biden blew it. He had a chance to make substantive remarks about real-life issues that the public is facing. Instead, he sounded more like an old man reminiscing about days gone by.

    Letter #22, 2022, Wednesday, February 2: Viganò    Once again the good Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who turned 81 on January 16, has written a searing, even emotional, appeal to his fellow bishops and to the world to have a full and open scientific assessment of the current epidemic and the vaccinations proposed and imposed to confront the disease.     The issue at its heart seems to be the one of scientific transparency. Viganò is as a pastor concerned for the health of children, first of all, because they are the future, and then for the common good of all society in the face of the many grave challenges before us.     What seems to be the center of his thought is the necessity for an open, complete and rigorous evaluation of the pros and cons of the various treatments, vaccinations, lockdown measures, mask use, etc., in order that we do not choose any policy which will we later regret as time reveals negative consequences that we neglected to take into consideration. In this sense, despite his emotional language, the essence of the archbishop’s thought is to appeal to science and reason at the highest possible level and at the greatest degree of transparency in order to assure the common good now and in decades to come.    These have become emotional and divisive matters. But it is essential for us to face them. It is not simply a matter of “conspiracy theories,” but a matter of honesty. What Viganò is really calling for is a full, transparent study of the data and this is a rational and scientific attitude. When he writes that the U.S. bishops and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued policy statements on the pandemic and the vaccines “without taking even the slightest account of the serious critiques of the so-called vaccines, both in terms of their production as well as their demonstrated ineffectiveness, the weakness of the immune system that they induce, and finally the serious side effects they entail,” what he is really saying is that there is a need for more science, not less.    It is not an un-scientific diatribe by a person without interest in the scientific facts, but a cry from the heart of a very deeply scientific person who is anxious that all of the facts are placed on the table, evaluated, and taken into consideration during all policy discussions. This is fully in keeping with the best scientific traditions of Western culture.    In all of this, the danger is not the raising of questions but the ignoring of them.    In all of this, the importance is to be balanced not prejudiced, to be unswayed by financial interests and focused solely on the common good, on what policies would be the best to help protect and reduce the suffering of the most people with the least negative side effects.    Thus when the Archbishop says: “Anyone who is not blinded by prejudice or discredited by macroscopic conflicts of interest has now understood that the moral evaluation of the experimental gene serum cannot and should not be limited to an analysis of its individual elements, but must also extend to the overall picture, which alone can show the relation between the emergency pandemic, the vaccine campaign, the boycott of available treatments, the imposition of the ‘green pass,’ and the destruction of the social and economic fabric of many nations,” he is saying that we must not be blinded by prejudice but open to facts.    All of this has become very emotional and divisive. But this does not lessen the need for even greater efforts to be reasonable, thoughtful, fair, balanced, in the assessment of the danger we face and the best policies to confront the danger.    So, just as the Christian faith draws on both the good news of the proclamation of Christ’s coming and saving work, truths which are to be believed, and also on reason to explore the deeper meaning of these truths of the faith, we must today proceed both in faith and in reason in all things. That is faith that the human person has dignity in a world under the protection of the logos, and confidence that human reason can, with unceasing effort, overcome prejudice and corruption to arrive at wise policy decisions for the common good. —RM    P.S. I would draw your attention to the button below. It would not hurt our ability to bring out this letter if we would receive a number of modest donations of support. It costs about $2,000 per year simply to mail these emails out. The emails are free so I invite you to participate with me in supporting them.

Support the Moynihan Letters

A considerationon my Letter to the President of the USCCB and to the CDFabout the experimental gene serum    By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (link)    January 27, 2021    As was foreseeable, my open Letter to the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (here) about the moral liceity, effectiveness, and dangerous nature of the experimental gene serums which are supposedly vaccines against Covid received no response: this shows that the question I have raised is not considered relevant by either the American Episcopate or the former Holy Office; or perhaps that – precisely because of its importance – it has been decided to ignore it, following the official narrative embraced by the Vatican.    The multiple Vatican endorsements of the criminal mass vaccine campaign confirm the full adherence of the Hierarchy to the globalist narrative, without taking even the slightest account of the serious critiques of the so-called vaccines, both in terms of their production as well as their demonstrated ineffectiveness, the weakness of the immune system that they induce, and finally the serious side effects they entail.    Prelates who betray their mandate, who are almost always just as corrupt in doctrine as they are in morals, have occupied the Church of Christ in order to transform Her into a state church, a zealous servant of the New World Order and apostate in its faith. What was an infiltration up until a few decades ago has been transformed into a true and proper invasion in all of the Roman Dicasteries and in the peripheral organs of the Holy See. The Pontifical Academy for Life is no exception. It has become an organ of neo-malthusianism even to the point of declaring that subjecting oneself to inoculation with the experimental drug is an act of love and a moral duty, incontrovertibly denying not only the evidence of the facts but also the existence of a global plan that has deliberately caused this psycho-pandemic in order to bring about a ruthless reduction of the world population – especially the elderly – and impose forms of control and restriction of the natural rights of citizens. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, after having displayed a collectivist mentality worthy of the worst communist dictatorships (here), denies that there is a “conspiracy” (here) just as the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” – that is, the “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum – is explicitly mentioned by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (here). Access to the Vatican and the offices of the Roman Curia is now forbidden to employees and anyone who does not have the “super green pass”: Cardinals and Prelates who are healthy or who have recovered from Covid are not permitted to carry out their duties in the Roman Dicasteries, and unvaccinated employees are left at home without any salary. As a practical example of inclusivity and mercy, the Bergoglian “pontificate” repudiates itself.    If it is not surprising that the deep church is totally subservient to the deep state, nor that Bergoglio wants to put himself forward as a candidate for the presidency of the Religion of Humanity that the New World Order intends to establish, on the other hand we see that the pandemic represents only one aspect of the complex network of complicity between the globalist oligarchy, the financial power of the pharmaceutical companies, international institutions, and national governments all over the world. We find confirmation of this in the Argentine’s confidential meetings with the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, denounced by Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register (here) and by Jules Gomes at Church Militant (here), in which there also emerges the substantial funding – to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars per year since 2014 – that the communist dictatorship of Beijing is said to have paid to the disastrous Vatican coffers as payment for the Holy See’s silence about the persecution of Catholics of the clandestine Church in China, whose martyrs have been betrayed and ruthlessly ignored by the very people who should instead be defending them and denouncing the violations of their human rights.    These joint interests are much broader and also involve other characters: time will do justice to the complicity of the Bergoglian church with the protagonists of the global coup that is currently underway, and, along with the masks that have been imposed on the population, time will also make the masks fall from those who have disguised themselves as saviors of humanity while in fact they sought to subjugate the peoples of the world and exterminate citizens or make them chronically ill.    Anyone who is not blinded by prejudice or discredited by macroscopic conflicts of interest has now understood that the moral evaluation of the experimental gene serum cannot and should not be limited to an analysis of its individual elements, but must also extend to the overall picture, which alone can show the relation between the emergency pandemic, the vaccine campaign, the boycott of available treatments, the imposition of the “green pass,” and the destruction of the social and economic fabric of many nations. Looking at the gene serum as if it were a real vaccine that prevents a serious illness is useless, because its effectiveness in preventing contagion is zero, and Covid is not a fatal disease if treated promptly. The news of the falsification of official data regarding deaths as a result of Covid by health institutions is accompanied by the inefficiency of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in reporting adverse cases, to which is added the passive supervision of the European health system, in violation of the regulations in force for experimental drugs.    Someone maintained that my intervention on this topic was a sort of “invasion of the field [of medicine]” by a Bishop, especially because of the scientific topics that I addressed. And in order to teach me not to meddle in specialized issues, a paper was published by Doctor Gwyneth A. Spaeder (here) which was intended to refute my arguments. The affair was so badly orchestrated, with such bias, that it ended up bringing to light Dr. Spaeder’s conflicts of interest. Doctor Massimo Citro Della Riva wanted to intervene in my defense, responding point-by-point, backing up his answers with hundreds of authoritative sources and unequivocal proofs (here). Dr. Spaeder’s second paper in reply to Dr. Citro (here) did not present any valid element to even minimally rebut Dr. Citro’s statements. Dr. Citro now sets forth a conclusion to the dispute with a new irreproachable letter.    With the courtesy and refinement that always distinguish him, Dr. Citro has demonstrated the groundlessness of what Dr. Spaeder has affirmed, in particular by highlighting the conflict of interest that involves doctors, pharmaceutical companies, scientific publications, drug agencies, university bodies, and public institutions. But according to some, pointing out the evidence of a malicious intention in the management of the pandemic is an indication of psychiatric disturbance or diabolical possession: which says a lot about the professionalism of certain journalism outlets and the decline of certain news agencies (here).    Having taken note of the scandalous apostasy of the Hierarchy on the one hand and the criminal plan of the globalist oligarchy on the other, one then understands why Bergoglio and his court are necessary supporters of the coup in progress. The corruption of the pharmaceutical industry, although it is well known, is deliberately ignored, because BigPharma is one of the principal allies of the elite in the pursuit of the Great Reset. The Bergoglian church is also a supporter of the New World Order, and the crimes committed under the pretext of the pandemic are culpably silenced by Bergoglio because he hopes to gain political advantage. This coup will be thwarted, and along with it the sect of heretics and corrupt men that now occupies the Vatican will inexorably collapse.    But in order for the truth to triumph and the guilty to be condemned, it is necessary to open our eyes, recognizing the crisis of authority both at the political and religious levels: both of these, having denied their origin in God the Creator, Lord, and Redeemer, have lost their legitimacy, and as a result they have also lost the obligation on the part of citizens and the faithful to obey them. Let us pray therefore that both civil and ecclesiastical rulers may understand that only by returning to God and His Law will they be able to merit the respect that today it is a duty to deny them. And may the Lord protect and give courage to those who oppose the kingdom of Satan on earth.    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop27 January 2022S. Joannis Chrysostomi Episcopi et Confessoris et Ecclesiae DoctorisFeast of St. John Chrysostom, Bishop, Confessor and Doctor of the Church

Catholic League pr@catholicleague.org via auth.ccsend.com	8:43 AM (5 hours ago)
to me

Media Blackout Of Anti-Catholic Attacks January 26, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent pro-abortion attacks on the Catholic Church: On the rare occasion when a pro-life advocate acts irresponsibly, the media are all over it. By contrast, just recently there were two examples of pro-abortion advocates acting irresponsibly, and the media responded with a big yawn. As we reported last week, on January 20, the anti-Catholic outfit, Catholics for Choice, used a light projection to beam pro-abortion messages on the facade of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.; the event was a prayer vigil before the annual March for Life that was held the next day. We have now learned that on January 22, the anti-Catholic outfit, New York City for Abortion Rights, projected “God Loves Abortion” and other vile slogans on the exterior of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Supporters of the group shouted obscenities at pro-life Catholics entering and exiting the Cathedral. Both of these shell groups are on the losing side of the abortion issue. Over the past few decades, more and more Americans have been moving in a pro-life direction, and the pro-abortion activists know it. They also know that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade in June. This accounts for why the New York City group wants to engage in a confrontation. “The approach of non-confrontation which many feminist organizations have pursued in response to this onslaught [of pro-life victories in state legislatures and the courts] has unfortunately been a failing strategy. Now, more than ever, we need a fighting grassroots movement.” They are just itching for a confrontation. There have been a few legal challenges to light projection protests, but so far no court has ruled in favor of them. They are not seen as trespassing or in violation of nuisance statutes, nor have they resulted in economic harm. Therefore, they are seen as protected speech. The media have a professional obligation to cover events like the ones in D.C. and New York City. Their reticence has more to do with their politics than their ethical obligations. In a larger story on the March for Life, the New York Times and the Washington Post made mention of the desecration of the Basilica, but neither covered the assault on St. Patrick’s Cathedral. None of the other newspapers covered anything about either event, and all the TV broadcast networks and cable news channels were equally silent. Last week we asked our email subscribers to contact Catholics for Choice. This week we are requesting they contract the New York outfit. Contact NYC For Abortion Rights: nyc4abortionrights@gmail.com Phone: 212-371-3191E-mail: pr@catholicleague.org

Media Blackout Of Anti-Catholic Attacks January 26, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent pro-abortion attacks on the Catholic Church: On the rare occasion when a pro-life advocate acts irresponsibly, the media are all over it. By contrast, just recently there were two examples of pro-abortion advocates acting irresponsibly, and the media responded with a big yawn. As we reported last week, on January 20, the anti-Catholic outfit, Catholics for Choice, used a light projection to beam pro-abortion messages on the facade of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.; the event was a prayer vigil before the annual March for Life that was held the next day. We have now learned that on January 22, the anti-Catholic outfit, New York City for Abortion Rights, projected “God Loves Abortion” and other vile slogans on the exterior of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Supporters of the group shouted obscenities at pro-life Catholics entering and exiting the Cathedral. Both of these shell groups are on the losing side of the abortion issue. Over the past few decades, more and more Americans have been moving in a pro-life direction, and the pro-abortion activists know it. They also know that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade in June. This accounts for why the New York City group wants to engage in a confrontation. “The approach of non-confrontation which many feminist organizations have pursued in response to this onslaught [of pro-life victories in state legislatures and the courts] has unfortunately been a failing strategy. Now, more than ever, we need a fighting grassroots movement.” They are just itching for a confrontation. There have been a few legal challenges to light projection protests, but so far no court has ruled in favor of them. They are not seen as trespassing or in violation of nuisance statutes, nor have they resulted in economic harm. Therefore, they are seen as protected speech. The media have a professional obligation to cover events like the ones in D.C. and New York City. Their reticence has more to do with their politics than their ethical obligations. In a larger story on the March for Life, the New York Times and the Washington Post made mention of the desecration of the Basilica, but neither covered the assault on St. Patrick’s Cathedral. None of the other newspapers covered anything about either event, and all the TV broadcast networks and cable news channels were equally silent. Last week we asked our email subscribers to contact Catholics for Choice. This week we are requesting they contract the New York outfit. Contact NYC For Abortion Rights: nyc4abortionrights@gmail.com Phone: 212-371-3191E-mail: pr@catholicleague.org

    Letter #15, 2022, Tuesday, January 25: Top Ten 2021 #7    I have long believed that medicine is one of the noble professions. When a child falls ill or an accident threatens to cause lifelong trauma, a doctor can truly offer marvelous healing. My own brother is a doctor in an emergency room and is heroic in what he does during all-night shifts caring for those that come from car accidents or even gunshot wounds. He has cradled the heads of many who have died in his arms.     That said the modern Western style of medicine has become so technology intensive and costly that there are conflicts that emerge in the life of every doctor who participates in our system. And in the past two years, the confusing and sometimes contradictory information that has troubled all of us with regard to the various viruses that seem to be threatening us have led all of us to pray for good doctors and courageous doctors to tell us the truth. The problem is that so much money is involved and so much potential for control of large populations depending on what choices governments make that many doctors and researchers have felt tremendous pressure not to contradict any mainstream narrative even when they felt sure that they had insights and information that could be helpful to all of us. We desperately need to be confident that our political and medical leaders are honest and honorable, but these two years have suggested that with billions of dollars at stake and enormous social engineering projects in the balance, some of the truths that we long to hear are being ostracized, de-platformed, and expelled from public discourse. This is a tragedy. In the midst of all this, the voice of Pamela Acker has been of exceptional importance and for this reason we chose her to be one of our Top Ten People of the year 2021. —RM The world can be a dark place, yet these are people who refuse to let the darkness prevail     It’s been two years since Covid first came to international attention, and countless aspects of life have never been the same since. Yet, one thing that has remained constant is the determination of individuals to follow the Spirit’s call to transcend their own comfort, their own desires, their own interests, and brave sometimes severe difficulties in service to their brothers and sisters in the human family.     It is the call echoed by Pope Francis: “The gift of the Holy Spirit has been bestowed in abundance so that we may live lives of genuine faith and active charity.”     “Go out,” he says, “…become the Word in body as well as in spirit.”     And so we highlight here 10 people — admittedly, just a tiny few among the many, many faithful and selfless souls around the world — to underscore not only the need and the challenge of following the Gospel command to “love your neighbor,” but also to hold them up as a beacon of encouragement. We are all called to live lives of service and we all find it daunting at times; but the Lord sustains us and gives us hope.     These are men and women who bring us some of that hope. The world can be a dark place, yet these are people who refuse to let the darkness prevail. They are Inside the Vatican’s Top Ten of 2021.  Support the Moynihan Letters Pamela Acker     Saying “no” to vaccines dependent on abortion    A Catholic researcher seeks to dispel the confusion    Miss Pamela Acker is a medical researcher with a master’s degree in biology, a former vaccine researcher, a science teacher, and a devout Catholic who looks at health from the perspective of man as a created being.     Modern Westerners are used to accepting the prevalent atheistic-evolutionary model of nature without realizing some of its consequences.     But consequences there are – including a worldview, shared by contemporary academics and popular culture, that as the product of random, impersonal forces, nature is infinitely malleable. Natural characteristics and processes are no longer the reference points for what is good for man – physically and psychologically – and what we can do to the human body is only limited by our ingenuity.     This view is completely foreign to a worldview that recognizes nature as created immediately and intentionally by an all-knowing God, and the human body as an integral part of the person – not merely “a transport for the brain.”     Miss Acker applies this reasoning to the subject of vaccines, including Covid vaccines, in her book, Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective published in 2020 and currently being updated for a re-release in early 2021 by the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.    Miss Pamela Acker’s book Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, published in 2020 and currently being updated for a re-release in early 2022     “We underestimate the fact that the human body is designed to keep itself healthy and repel pathogens,” she says. “That isn’t to say that medicine has nothing to offer us, but we need to understand its limits, and that includes re-thinking vaccines. Taking a vaccine is just not the same as having a healthy immune system.”     In fact, she says, the current vaccines will never produce the coveted “herd immunity” that is supposedly the golden ticket to “eradication” of the Covid virus. “The Covid vaccines on the market started out with a claimed efficacy of over 90%, which was already debatable; after 6 months, their reported efficacy has plummeted to 50% for Pfizer, 64% for Moderna, and a whopping 3% for J&J.”     She is even more incredulous over the newest recommendation for children age 5 and over to receive the Covid vaccine: “With a small sample size (2200 children), no tracking of who had natural immunity and who didn’t, and a follow-up period of only one month, there’s just not enough data to make any research-based claims about safety or efficacy in children.”     But Miss Acker in particular raises the alarm about the morally-problematic origins of many vaccines: the HEK-293 cell line that was originally derived from a female baby aborted in the 1970s. “HEK” stands for “human embryonic kidney” and “293” indicates it was the 293rd experiment by researcher Frank Graham. While it’s possible that not all his experiments were done on fetal tissue, there is evidence in the scientific literature that he produced other fetal cell lines that aren’t used commercially.     “One of the points that the researchers try to obfuscate is just how many abortions were involved in vaccine development. It wasn’t just the babies that were used to produce the successful cell lines – there were many other babies whose tissue was harvested the same way.” But the moral problem doesn’t end there. “There’s also the problem of trafficking human tissue,” Acker says. “This is an ongoing moral issue. It’s not confined to the past.”     Most importantly, kidney cells die quickly, so they must be harvested from a living organism. “It’s clear that the unborn baby was alive when the kidney was cut out of her body,” she says. “We need to understand how evil the origin of these cell lines really is.”     Miss Acker often speaks of the “appropriation of evil,” and cautions that when one knowingly benefits from someone else’s evil action, even after the fact, “that affects your character internally in a more profound way than people realize.” She herself sacrificed a Ph.D. opportunity at Catholic University of America for refusing to participate in aborted fetal tissue research, instead choosing to graduate with a master’s degree and return to her previous career.     “No one can require us to compromise with evil. It’s important that people know they have a right to refuse to participate. And that refusal is so important if we want to really end aborted fetal tissue research.”