Under the pretext of public health, the soul of what is known as the Free West has left most Western countries. Looking at the government overreach and abuses of power in virtually every other Western nation, one can only conclude that America truly is the last free man standing.
Here is a rundown of the suppression of liberty in major Western countries.
Canada
Let’s start with our neighbor to the north.
Canada is one of the least free countries in the Western world. In some ways it is the least free. In every area of life, including freedom of speech, Canada severely restricts its citizens’ rights. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that bans the unvaccinated from all public transportation—airplanes, trains, and buses. And no Canadian home can entertain more than three non-household visitors—a ban that prevented families and friends from getting together for Christmas.
Canada is a moral embarrassment. But apparently most Canadians are perfectly content to live in a country moving toward dictatorship.
They should replace the maple leaf on the Canadian flag with a sheep.
Europe
In the summer of 2021, most European countries introduced the so-called health pass or “European COVID-19 Pass.” This digital pass, in the form of a QR code, is a prerequisite to access cafes, bars, restaurants, theaters, and even long-distance transport. Only the naive can now deny that the real goal of the EU has long been a digital identity system for all European citizens.
Netherlands
The Netherlands is among the least free countries in the West.
From Dec. 19 “until at least” Jan. 14, 2022, the Dutch must:
Stay at home as much as possible; receive no more than two visitors per day; be with no more than one other person outdoors; and work from home.
In addition, restaurants, cafes and bars, and nonessential shops are all closed.
Nor do the Dutch have the right to protest these draconian restrictions. Two days ago, an anti-lockdown protest was banned by the leftist mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, because people would “not be adhering to social distancing rules.” Thousands of people nevertheless showed up. They were met with drones, water cannons, and huge numbers of police. Footage capturing a police dog biting down on a peaceful protester’s arm has gone viral.
France
Starting next week, working from home will become compulsory for those who can.
French Prime Minister Jean Castex said, “Even if we do not yet see hospitals as overloaded by omicron, the contagiousness of the variant and the speed at which it is spreading require us to go further.”
And the country has had a “health pass” since last summer, which only allows the vaccinated, those who have a negative COVID-19 test result from within 24 hours, or who had COVID-19 to enter cafes, restaurants, museums, cinemas, and other public places. So, too, wearing a mask is compulsory throughout the country for everyone aged 11 and over in enclosed spaces and on public transport, on pain of a fine. Accordingly, consumption of food and drink is banned on public transport—including long-distance trains.
In schools, wearing a mask is compulsory from the age of 6, including in outdoor areas of the school.
Austria
Austria competes with the Netherlands for the title of Western Europe’s least free country.
From Nov. 22 to Dec. 12 no one was allowed to leave their home except for specific reasons such as buying groceries, going to the doctor, or exercising. The lockdown has continued for the more than 30 percent of Austrians who remain unvaccinated.
In other words, nearly a third of all Austrians have not been allowed to leave their homes since Nov. 22 and will not be allowed to do so for the foreseeable future.
It is about to get much worse. Austria is about to become the first country in the world that will make the COVID-19 vaccine compulsory. It will be illegal to be unvaccinated. Beginning Feb. 1, unvaccinated Austrians will be fined 200 euros every month, and the fine will be increased every time they are caught in any activity outside of their house. Germany has already stated it wants to follow suit.
Australia
Australia placed most of its citizens under house arrest for much of 2021. Sydney, Australia’s most populous city, was locked down for 106 days, ending only on Nov. 15. And Melbourne, the country’s second largest city, described by the Voice of America on Oct. 21 as “officially the world’s most locked down city,” was locked down 260 days. Residents were prohibited from traveling more than five kilometers from their homes, visiting family or friends, entering supermarkets except for pickup, and attending funerals. Schools were, and remain, still closed, and international travel was, and remains, prohibited. Needless to say, all shops, bars, and restaurants were closed. Essentially, people were prohibited from leaving their homes for a third of a year.
New Zealand
The lockdowns in New Zealand rendered that formerly free country essentially a totalitarian state in 2021. Befitting a totalitarian state, New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, actually said at one point regarding COVID-19 information, “Unless you hear it from the government, it is not true.” The woman, a bona fide fanatic, locked down her entire country because one person had the delta variant. Even pro-lockdown CNN seemed to find this a bit over-the-top. It headlined on Aug. 17: “New Zealand announces it’s locking down the entire country … over one Covid case.”
Germany
At the beginning of December, Germany announced a lockdown on the unvaccinated. They were banned from restaurants and bars, movie theaters, gyms, nonessential shops, and Christmas markets. About a quarter of all Germans are unvaccinated.
United Kingdom
Scotland has banned spectators, even if vaccinated, from attending sporting events. Masks must be worn indoors at public venues such as nightclubs, and one must show a health pass to enter nightclubs and other venues.
Wales went even further, allowing a maximum of six people to meet in pubs, cinemas, and restaurants. Nightclubs were simply closed as of Dec. 27. Mandatory six-feet social distancing came into effect in offices from the same date. People must work from home unless it is impossible to do so.
While England does not yet have the same lockdown rules as Wales and Scotland, throughout the UK one must show a health pass certifying vaccination—or had a negative COVID-19 test within the past 72 hours or had COVID-19 under six months earlier—in order to enter most public locations.
The United States
And then there is the United States of America. With states like Florida and most other Republican-governed states, we have the freest places in the Western world. Going from Canada or Western Europe to Florida is like going from Romania or Poland to Western Europe during the Cold War. Indeed, going from most Democrat-run cities to most Republican-run cities is also like passing through the Iron Curtain.
Thanks to its conservative half and thanks to the Founders’ genius of defanging the national government by giving states great power, America remains the beacon of liberty it was when Lincoln said, “America is the last best hope of Earth” and when France gave us the Statue of Liberty. If it were up to the Left, America would be as unfree as Canada or Austria. That’s why fighting the Left is the most important thing any American who cherishes liberty can do.
As Jonathan Adler noted, just before Christmas, President Biden announced two rather surprising federal appellate nominees—Nancy Gbana Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit and J. Michelle Childs to the D.C. Circuit. I’m going to pass over for now commenting on the merits of either nominee. (The Abudu pick has, as Jonathan anticipated, already generated controversy.) Instead, I’m going to use the occasion to elaborate on my post, three days before Biden’s announcement, in which I observed that, by Biden’s declared standard of demographic diversity, his first year of judicial nominations has clearly been a remarkable success.
In particular, I would like to highlight what strikes me as the most extraordinary aspect of Biden’s judicial picks so far: with the Abudu and Childs nominations, seven of Biden’s eighteen federal appellate nominees—39%—have been black women. The other five include the first four appellate judges that Biden commissioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson (D.C. Circuit), Candace Jackson-Akiwumi (Seventh Circuit), Tiffany P. Cunningham (Federal Circuit), and Eunice Lee (Second Circuit). The fifth, Holly Thomas (Ninth Circuit), will likely be confirmed this week or next.
Some observations:
1. According to the American Bar Association’s 2021 Profile of the Legal Profession, 4.7% of American lawyers are black and 37% are female. On the ballpark assumption that the male-female divide among black lawyers reflects the broad 63%-37% divide among all lawyers, that would indicate that roughly 1.7% of American lawyers are black females. That would mean that Biden has nominated black women to federal appellate seats at more than 22 times their numbers among American lawyers.
To make the point another way: There are 179 authorized federal appellate judgeships. If black women held appellate judgeships according to their numbers in the legal profession, they would have a total of three seats. (Four black women were appellate judges in active status when Biden became president; two of them have since announced an intention to take senior status.)
2. Over the course of his eight years as president, Barack Obama appointed only two black women to federal appellate seats: O. Rogeriee Thompson (First Circuit) and Bernice B. Donald (Sixth Circuit). (In the last year of his presidency, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Obama unsuccessfully nominated Myra C. Selby to a Seventh Circuit seat—the very seat, as it happens, that ended up being filled by Amy Coney Barrett.)
It’s worth pondering what accounts for the vast discrepancy between Obama and Biden. I see four possible factors. One is that the pool of black female lawyers who have the credentials to be considered plausible candidates for federal appellate seats is probably much larger than it was during Obama’s presidency. This would be a natural consequence of the increase over time in the number of black women who have gone to law school and succeeded in the legal profession.
A second possible factor is that the Biden White House is much more committed to nominating black women than the Obama White House was. Why this would be is unclear. A political explanation might be that Biden needs to prove himself more to the black community than Obama did, but that wouldn’t explain why all but one of Biden’s black appellate nominees have been women. Insofar as personnel is policy, the composition of the White House counsel’s office might be a big factor. (Biden’s White House counsel’s office has lots of women lawyers, including the White House counsel herself, and several black women lawyers; I don’t know offhand how that compares to the Obama White House.)
A third factor might be that the abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees in December 2013 makes it much easier for black women nominees to be confirmed. But why would it make it easier for them as compared to other nominees? The fact that Obama did not nominate any black women to appellate seats in the immediate wake of the filibuster abolition also cuts against this explanation.
A fourth factor, and one that I think might be easily overlooked, is that the demotion of the home-state senator’s blue-slip privilege on appellate nominations—put into effect by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in late 2017—dramatically increases the White House’s power in the nomination process, including over same-party senators. Without the ability to veto a nomination, it’s much harder for a home-state Democratic senator to tell the Biden White House that it has to nominate someone from the senator’s short list. (For this reason, I doubt very much that the Senate will ever demote the blue slip for district-court nominees. To put the point concisely, no senator will ever want to have a political enemy presiding over his corruption trial.)
3. The fact that black women are massively overrepresented among Biden’s appellate picks of course means that other groups haven’t fared as well.
According to the ABA report, Hispanics account for 4.8% of American lawyers, slightly higher than the 4.7% figure for blacks. They also account for a much larger share of the American population. But whereas Biden has nominated eight blacks (the seven women, plus Sixth Circuit nominee Andre Mathis) to appellate seats, he has nominated only three Hispanics. And one of those, Gustavo Gelpí, was to the Puerto Rico seat on the First Circuit, where it would have been difficult not to nominate a Hispanic. So while the Hispanic nomination rate amply exceeds the percentage of Hispanic lawyers, it is much less than half (and, if you exclude Gelpí from the calculus), barely above a quarter of the black nomination rate.
Of course, the big losers (I take some delight in noting) are liberal white males. By the ABA’s numbers, white males account for more than half of American lawyers. Yet only two of Biden’s eighteen appellate nominees (11%) are white males.
(I have previously highlighted law professor John McGinnis’s superb essay on the theoretical and practical problems with the Left’s heavy emphasis on diversity, or representativeness, as a criterion in selecting judges. Nothing in this post should be mistaken as an endorsement of that emphasis.)
M. Edward Whelan III Distinguished Senior Fellow and
Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies Ethics and Public Policy Center 1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-682-1200 www.EPPC.org
Sign up for email distributions of my blog posts and other writings
on Biden’s extraordinary record on black female appellate nominations
As Jonathan Adler noted, just before Christmas, President Biden announced two rather surprising federal appellate nominees—Nancy Gbana Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit and J. Michelle Childs to the D.C. Circuit. I’m going to pass over for now commenting on the merits of either nominee. (The Abudu pick has, as Jonathan anticipated, already generated controversy.) Instead, I’m going to use the occasion to elaborate on my post, three days before Biden’s announcement, in which I observed that, by Biden’s declared standard of demographic diversity, his first year of judicial nominations has clearly been a remarkable success.
In particular, I would like to highlight what strikes me as the most extraordinary aspect of Biden’s judicial picks so far: with the Abudu and Childs nominations, seven of Biden’s eighteen federal appellate nominees—39%—have been black women. The other five include the first four appellate judges that Biden commissioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson (D.C. Circuit), Candace Jackson-Akiwumi (Seventh Circuit), Tiffany P. Cunningham (Federal Circuit), and Eunice Lee (Second Circuit). The fifth, Holly Thomas (Ninth Circuit), will likely be confirmed this week or next.
Some observations:
1. According to the American Bar Association’s 2021 Profile of the Legal Profession, 4.7% of American lawyers are black and 37% are female. On the ballpark assumption that the male-female divide among black lawyers reflects the broad 63%-37% divide among all lawyers, that would indicate that roughly 1.7% of American lawyers are black females. That would mean that Biden has nominated black women to federal appellate seats at more than 22 times their numbers among American lawyers.
To make the point another way: There are 179 authorized federal appellate judgeships. If black women held appellate judgeships according to their numbers in the legal profession, they would have a total of three seats. (Four black women were appellate judges in active status when Biden became president; two of them have since announced an intention to take senior status.)
2. Over the course of his eight years as president, Barack Obama appointed only two black women to federal appellate seats: O. Rogeriee Thompson (First Circuit) and Bernice B. Donald (Sixth Circuit). (In the last year of his presidency, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Obama unsuccessfully nominated Myra C. Selby to a Seventh Circuit seat—the very seat, as it happens, that ended up being filled by Amy Coney Barrett.)
It’s worth pondering what accounts for the vast discrepancy between Obama and Biden. I see four possible factors. One is that the pool of black female lawyers who have the credentials to be considered plausible candidates for federal appellate seats is probably much larger than it was during Obama’s presidency. This would be a natural consequence of the increase over time in the number of black women who have gone to law school and succeeded in the legal profession.
A second possible factor is that the Biden White House is much more committed to nominating black women than the Obama White House was. Why this would be is unclear. A political explanation might be that Biden needs to prove himself more to the black community than Obama did, but that wouldn’t explain why all but one of Biden’s black appellate nominees have been women. Insofar as personnel is policy, the composition of the White House counsel’s office might be a big factor. (Biden’s White House counsel’s office has lots of women lawyers, including the White House counsel herself, and several black women lawyers; I don’t know offhand how that compares to the Obama White House.)
A third factor might be that the abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees in December 2013 makes it much easier for black women nominees to be confirmed. But why would it make it easier for them as compared to other nominees? The fact that Obama did not nominate any black women to appellate seats in the immediate wake of the filibuster abolition also cuts against this explanation.
A fourth factor, and one that I think might be easily overlooked, is that the demotion of the home-state senator’s blue-slip privilege on appellate nominations—put into effect by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in late 2017—dramatically increases the White House’s power in the nomination process, including over same-party senators. Without the ability to veto a nomination, it’s much harder for a home-state Democratic senator to tell the Biden White House that it has to nominate someone from the senator’s short list. (For this reason, I doubt very much that the Senate will ever demote the blue slip for district-court nominees. To put the point concisely, no senator will ever want to have a political enemy presiding over his corruption trial.)
3. The fact that black women are massively overrepresented among Biden’s appellate picks of course means that other groups haven’t fared as well.
According to the ABA report, Hispanics account for 4.8% of American lawyers, slightly higher than the 4.7% figure for blacks. They also account for a much larger share of the American population. But whereas Biden has nominated eight blacks (the seven women, plus Sixth Circuit nominee Andre Mathis) to appellate seats, he has nominated only three Hispanics. And one of those, Gustavo Gelpí, was to the Puerto Rico seat on the First Circuit, where it would have been difficult not to nominate a Hispanic. So while the Hispanic nomination rate amply exceeds the percentage of Hispanic lawyers, it is much less than half (and, if you exclude Gelpí from the calculus), barely above a quarter of the black nomination rate.
Of course, the big losers (I take some delight in noting) are liberal white males. By the ABA’s numbers, white males account for more than half of American lawyers. Yet only two of Biden’s eighteen appellate nominees (11%) are white males.
(I have previously highlighted law professor John McGinnis’s superb essay on the theoretical and practical problems with the Left’s heavy emphasis on diversity, or representativeness, as a criterion in selecting judges. Nothing in this post should be mistaken as an endorsement of that emphasis.)
M. Edward Whelan III Distinguished Senior Fellow and
Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies Ethics and Public Policy Center 1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-682-1200 www.EPPC.org
Sign up for email distributions of my blog posts and other writings
“Before the Epstein Scandal, There Was the Franklin Scandal” & Archbishop Sheehan who ordained Cupich who is Francis’s USA Right Hand Man
The Epoch Times@EpochTimesAccording to Nick Bryant, the lack of transparency around #JeffreyEpstein and the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial isn’t the first time the #DOJ and #FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite. [https://mobile.twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1465846866155868165]In an interview with WMAQ-TV that same day, Cupich said “The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. He’s got to get on with other things—of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.” When asked about those criticizing the Pope, Cupich responded, “Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino.”[55] Cupich later stated that his remarks were not referring to abuse by clergy, which must be exposed, reported, apologized for, and ended. – Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich]
Yesterday, Dinesh D’Souza wrote about the “conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell’ who was the main pimp for the “Jeffrey Epstein [international] pedophile sex ring”. He asked who were all the “most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous” involved in this ring:
Was it sufficient for Epstein to be the provider of young girls, so that he would be initiated into one of the most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous?
The critical question here is obviously: Who are these men? This is important to know because there are obviously a considerable number of very powerful individuals roaming around who are sexual criminals of the worst sort. These are not mere participants in a prostitution ring. Rather, they are pedophiles and sex predators who know full well that having sex with underage girls is a form of rape, since those girls are not legally capable of giving free consent.
Epstein knew who those men are, but Epstein can’t talk, because Epstein was found dead in his cell. To this day, the circumstances are highly suspicious. The guards left their posts. The cameras were turned off or didn’t function. The guards then allegedly altered records to conceal their locations. Former Attorney [RINO George Bush and Opus Dei collaborator] Gen. William Barr said he’s satisfied, upon a review of the internal investigation, that Epstein hanged himself, but the results of that investigation have never been made public. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/sing-ghislaine-maxwell-sing_4189304.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-04&mktids=2164b04e22d32ab99628001bc4a429d5&est=Ac5ZY0UedtS98faP15XJ54xyaGpTIjqCgUmqx95QEKMsh1co6V71K%2BcbIPt2]
In November, The Epoch Times showed that the Epstein scandal mirrored the older Franklin scandal that involved the Catholic Boys Town which was part of the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska:
On Dec. 4, demonstrators will rally in New York to protest what they say is a cover-up of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell alleged pedophile network.
“The nonviolent, non-politically partisan demonstration will send a message to the Department of Justice that the American people will not settle for only Maxwell being indicted on one count of child trafficking, because the Epstein/Maxwell child trafficking network had multiple procurers and perpetrators,” event organizer Nick Bryant told The Epoch Times.
According to Bryant, this isn’t the first time the DOJ and FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite.
He would know. One of the leading researchers on sex trafficking networks and child abuse, Bryant made his mark in the Epstein scandal when he obtained and eventually had published Epstein’s infamous black book—revealing the international financier’s numerous high-profile contacts.
But before that, Bryant came across another explosive document that would lead to his sweeping account of what’s now known as the Franklin Scandal—a child sex-trafficking ring that ran rampant throughout the United States in the 1980s…
… Bryant said the report suggests to him that the CIA quashed the investigation into the Finders. Up until that point, Bryant said he didn’t believe in the notion that a sex trafficking ring could operate with government knowledge—or even consent.
“That one document opened up my mind to entertaining ideas that I previously wouldn’t have entertained,” he said.
The Customs report would lead Bryant down a rabbit hole to Omaha, Nebraska, where another sex-trafficking ring was said to have been operated by the head of the now-defunct, eponymous Franklin Federal Credit Union.
Separate state and federal grand juries concluded in 1990 that the Franklin sex-trafficking allegations were a “carefully crafted hoax,” but Bryant’s work suggests that the DOJ and FBI worked to subvert investigations.
For instance, Bryant said the FBI pressured one of the victims, then-21-year-old Alicia Owen, to recant her allegations that she was trafficked by the Franklin network during her adolescence. When Owen refused, she was charged with 16 counts of perjury and served more than four years in prison—about two of them in solitary confinement.
“The authorities wanted to destroy her,” Bryant said.
Franklin victims eventually received some vindication in 1999, when U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom issued a summary judgment against the former Franklin head in civil proceedings. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/before-the-epstein-scandal-there-was-the-franklin-scandal_4130748.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=digitalsub&slsuccess=1]
Former state Senator John DeCamp in his book “The Franklin Cover-Up” wrote about how not only the FBI would do “nothing” to uncover the cover-up, but also the media and the bishop of Omaha:
In May 1992, shortly after the first edition of this book was published, Monsignor Robert Hupp, who had been the head of Boys Town from the late 1970s through the decade of the 1980s – the critical time in question for the Franklin case, contacted me and asked to have a meeting, at which he specified that witnesses must be present. I anticipated that his purpose was to attack me, and to deny what I had written about Boys Town.
I was completely wrong. With two witnesses present, Monsignor Hupp opened our discussion with the simple statement: “John DeCamp, your book stated the game; I hope I can help with some of the names.”
Monsignor Hupp and I then entered into an in-depth discussion on the entire situation involving Boys Town, Larry King, Peter Citron, the pedophile problem in general, and the entire story of the Franklin cover-up. He verified piece after piece of evidence of the Franklin story for me, and provided guidance on other directions in which to look, to develop further proof of the children’s stories of abuse by this country’s wealthy and powerful.
When I asked Monsignor Hupp how this ever could have happened at Boys Town, he looked at me and told me, so apologetically, “I am like the wife who did not know, and was the last to find out. And when I finally did suspect something and tried to act, the Archbishop [Daniel Sheehan] elected to do nothing about it, when I asked him to help. And then, when I came upon something horribly evil, I found public officials and the Church would do nothing – apparently terrified at the damage it would do to the Church and to the entire city of Omaha,” Monsignor Hupp said.
“What are you talking about?” I asked him. “Is there some particular story or incident you are talking about in the book that you have more information about? Please explain what you mean,” I asked the Monsignor.
He then described an incident in 1985, in which a young boy named Shattuck, who lived in Elkhorn, Nebraska, had been sexually abused and then killed. The Monsignor told me that he was certain who had killed the boy, a man he identified as a member of the Catholic clergy in the Omaha Archdiocese. Monsignor Hupp provided precise detail which he said proved beyond any doubt, that the particular individual he named was, in fact, the child’s murderer. {{ |”The Church is plagued by these sexual abuse problems across the country and by the devastating publicity the clergy abuse incidents have caused,” Monsignor Hupp explained. “The Church’s reaction to these sexual abuse problems is, in most cases, to immediately get the clergy member involved out of the state and, if possible, out of the country, and hopefully into treatment. I know that may not be right, but it is a difficult situation to deal with, and simply moving the priest or the brother out of the state or country has been the traditional approach by the Church in America to addressing the problems. In this case, where an innocent child was murdered and where I know that a member of our clergy has done this, I felt I had a moral obligation overriding all other things, to bring the situation to the attention of the appropriate authorities. And I did,” }} Hupp concluded.
The Monsignor then shocked me for the second time that day – and in a way that brought back to me the horrible memories of the Franklin cover-up.
He explained that after he determined that the Catholic Archbishop of Omaha was not going to take action on the case, he then went to the FBI and to the Omaha law enforcement authorities to provide complete details on the child’s murder.
So, what happened as a result of Monsignor Hupp’s actions?
Apparently, nothing. Each year on the anniversary of the child’s murder – now almost ten years – the media talks about the case as still being ‘under investigation’, and street rumors persist about the Catholic clergyman – the one Monsignor Hupp believes killed the child – who was shipped out of state for alcohol treatment right after the murder. In the aftermath of our meeting, Monsignor Hupp ran into his own problems. In September 1992, the Monsignor advised me that he was receiving all kinds of pressure and criticism and was, he feared, being forced to leave Boys Town.
Shortly after that discussion, in a controversy that received national press attention on how resources should be used at Boys Town, Monsignor Hupp was removed from his post. He now lives quietly in a home in West Omaha, Nebraska. Monsignor Hupp has shown incredible courage, as he has continued to provide me direction and assistance in the Franklin investigation and related matters.
Monsignor Hupp is not some 13 year old kid whom the cops say they cannot trust or believe. On the contrary, he is one of America’s most famous and nationally honored clergymen; the author of two best sellers; a former Presidential Appointee as Special Ambassador to the United Nations; and the former head of America’s most famous child care institution (Boys Town). Monsignor Hupp showed his courage yet again, when he repeated his charges a year later to a British TV team making a documentary on the Franklin cover-up, entitled Conspiracy of Silence. [https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Franklin_Cover-up]
Interestingly, Archbishop Sheehan who did “nothing” to uncover the cover-up ordained Cardinal Blase Cupich who is Francis’s right hand man in the United States who said“The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich and https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcupich.html%5D
Ironically, speaking of a “bigger agenda,” Francis apparently is also involved in sex abuse cover-ups.
On Jun 10, 2019, Crux reported a “personal friend” of Francis was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse”:
“Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta… was charged with ‘aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization’…”
“[He was charged] by the prosecutor’s office in the Argentine northern province of Salta. The bishop was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization. Zanchetta, the former bishop of Oran, was accused of “strange behavior” in 2015 when a diocesan secretary found pornographic pictures on the prelate’s phone. The images included gay porn featuring young men, but not minors, as well as images of Zanchetta touching himself. They were allegedly sent to unknown third parties.” [https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/06/10/argentine-bishop-at-heart-of-phone-porn-scandal-charged-with-abusing-seminarians/]
LifeSiteNews reported that “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father”:
“[T]he words of the priest who signed the second document [testimony], “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father.” (LifeSiteNews, “Pope Francis knew of Bishop’s abuse years before Vatican posting, new document indicate,” February 27, 2019)
Francis’s “personal friend” Archbishop Gustavo Zanchetta, who apparently lives “in Casa Santa Marta, where Francis himself resides,” is a gay pervert according to the document. (Lifesitenews, “Vatican sex abuse cover-up unravels as prosecutors home in on bishop protected by Pope Francis,” February 18, 2019)
That is unless the testimony on Zanchetta by Argentinian Church officials is only them lying through their teeth about the “personal friend” of Francis.
Is lying through your teeth about your boss’s “personal friend” something any normal person is going to do?
To put this situation in perspective, imagine President Donald Trump’s personal friend being a pervert who lived in the same residence as the president.
Or better yet, imagine you had a personal friend who was a pervert living in your residence.
What would that say about you?
Generally, most normal people’s personal friends who live in the same residence with them are like them in beliefs and lifestyle or they usually aren’t their friend nor living in their residence.
What does it say, if it is true, that Francis’s “personal friend” who apparently lives in his residence is a gay pervert?
Moreover, on September 24, 2018, LifeSiteNews reported that another “friend” of Francis was protected by him from a credible allegation when he blocked an investigation of a abused woman who credibly accused a group of priests including Francis’s friend Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.
The woman, also, accused, among the group of priests, the pedophile priest Fr. Michael “Hill [of] abus[ing] her in the late 1960s, there were several other priests present and involved. She claims that Murphy-O’Connor was among them”:
“Pope Francis told Cardinal Gerhard Müller in 2013 to stop investigating abuse allegations against British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, according to a highly-placed Vatican source who spoke to Marco Tossati. Murphy-O’Connor, as a member of the “Sankt [St.] Gallen mafia,” played a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope in 2013.”
The website The Eponymous Flower summed up the Francis cover-up:
“Marco Tosatti, together with the Canadian news website LifeSiteNews, now raises serious allegations against Pope Francis. His gratitude to his great election victory went so far as to stop investigations by the Congregation of the Faith against Murphy-O’Connor. Tosatti refers to a ‘Vatican source’, which he describes as a ‘prominent former figure of the Roman Curia.’”
“The incident took place in June 2013, three months after the election of Pope Francis. The Prefect of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, was celebrating Mass with a group of German students when his secretary came to him and whispered in his ear that Pope Francis wanted to speak to him immediately. The Pope does not care if he is celebrating. He wanted to talk to him right now. In the sacristy, the Prefect of Faith met a “frustrated” Francis. He gave him the unequivocal order to immediately stop the initial proceedings against a friend of the pope.” “The ‘Friend of the Pope,’ Tosatti said, was no lesser than Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. There was an investigation against the former Archbishop of Westminister from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of situation reported by a woman claiming to have been abused by a priest at the age of 13/14. For fifteen years she had tried in vain to draw attention to her case without being heard by the competent authorities. The highest competent body was Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. Finally, she turned directly to the Congregation of the Faith in Rome.”[http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/09/pope-stopped-investigation-into-old.html?m=1] Francis’s “friend” Murphy-O’Connor was not only “involved” in the credible allegation of the gang “abuse” of a girl “13 or 14 years of age,” but covered-up for the pedophile Hill: “LifeSiteNews reached out to a reliable source from England who is very well informed about exactly that same lady who had been accusing the English cardinal. According to this English source, the lady has never gone public with her charges. But she has been in contact with Church authorities for about 15 years now, without ever having received a thorough investigation of her claims. This lady is already an acknowledged abuse victim, having received a settlement from the Archdiocese. She had been abused, when she was 13 or 14 years of age, by Father Michael Hill.”
“The pedophile Father Hill was imprisoned for five years in 2002 for abusing three minor children between 10 and 14. He had previously been imprisoned, in 1997, also for abusing children. He is thought to have attacked about 30 boys between his ordination in 1960 and the late 1980s. As The Guardian put it at the time: “His case is particularly notorious because the church’s leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, gave him a post despite warnings that he had abused young boys.” Hill had been moved to different parishes, in spite of the ongoing complaints of parents. Finally he underwent therapy in the 1980s.”
“Murphy-O’Connor, then bishop of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, had appointed Hill in 1985 and made him chaplain at Gatwick Airport. Hill then was charged with abusing a teenager with learning difficulties who had missed a flight and was visiting the airport’s chapel.”
‘As later reports showed, Murphy-O’Connor had been warned by therapists that Hill would be abusive again. Murphy-O’Connor accepted that the diocese should pay compensation to those victims of Hill, but requested their silence on the matter of their abuse. Murphy-O’Connor had also been accused of trying to pay hush money to Father Hill – some £50,000 to buy his silence when he was released from prison. Murphy-O’Connor “utterly” denied that claim. It was said that a junior bishop made the offer on his behalf during a visit to Hill’s Belmarsh prison in London.”
“… As The Guardianputs it: ‘A few months after his election, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was apparently lightheartedly to credit Murphy-O’Connor, when the two met at a papal audience. The pope pointed to his old friend and said, ‘You’re to blame!’”
Leo Zagami, the Italian author of a book on Francis called “l’Ultima Papa?,” also possibly may have connected some more dots in another cover-up case involving Cardinal Godfried Danneels who is seemingly another person who helped Francis:
Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who is a key figure in this network of liberal perverts, is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine since 2010, and is not only a staunch supporter and elector of Pope Francis, but was also a member of the secret and irregular Masonic Lodge known as “The Mafia of San Gallo” ( the St. Gallen Mafia), that has conspired for years behind the scenes, for the progressive and liberal take over of the Church, in a series of secret meetings, that took place in the town of San Gallo in Switzerland, headed by the late Jesuit Cardinal and Freemason, Carlo Maria Martini, described in detail in a biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, dedicated to the now retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who has been heavily criticized for trying to dissuade a victim of sexual abuse from denouncing his perpetrator, a Bishop who was the uncle of the victim, and for this reason during the 2013 Conclave in Belgium, there were those who wondered if he was eligible to even elect the new Pope.
Cover of Godfried Danneels biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens
Godfried Danneels admitted himself to be part of “The Mafia Club of San Gallo” in a public conference available on video:
So Bergoglio under pressure from what is known as “the San Gallo Mafia” which helped him to get elected in 2013, declined to renew Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s mandate, and conveniently replaced him with his deputy, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, 73, a Jesuit. [https://leozagami.com/2017/07/11/jesuit-and-pedophiles-take-over-the-catholic-faith-guided-by-a-secret-masonic-lodge/] Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
James the Convert said…As you should know by now, they’re all tied together. This unholy child sex ring goes way back and involves many clerics and laity, especially politicians. They were all compromised and used as pawns. Hard to fathom that Boys Town was a feeder along with numerous kidnappings. No one would even hint the Church was involved. It isn’t over either. It’s still going on and there is no one brave enough to investigate lest they end up like Loren Schmidt, John DeCamp or, God forbid, Gary Caradori and William Colby.6:23 PM
“Before the Epstein Scandal, There Was the Franklin Scandal” & Archbishop Sheehan who ordained Cupich who is Francis’s USA Right Hand Man
The Epoch Times@EpochTimesAccording to Nick Bryant, the lack of transparency around #JeffreyEpstein and the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial isn’t the first time the #DOJ and #FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite. [https://mobile.twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1465846866155868165]In an interview with WMAQ-TV that same day, Cupich said “The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. He’s got to get on with other things—of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.” When asked about those criticizing the Pope, Cupich responded, “Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino.”[55] Cupich later stated that his remarks were not referring to abuse by clergy, which must be exposed, reported, apologized for, and ended. – Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich]
Yesterday, Dinesh D’Souza wrote about the “conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell’ who was the main pimp for the “Jeffrey Epstein [international] pedophile sex ring”. He asked who were all the “most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous” involved in this ring:
Was it sufficient for Epstein to be the provider of young girls, so that he would be initiated into one of the most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous?
The critical question here is obviously: Who are these men? This is important to know because there are obviously a considerable number of very powerful individuals roaming around who are sexual criminals of the worst sort. These are not mere participants in a prostitution ring. Rather, they are pedophiles and sex predators who know full well that having sex with underage girls is a form of rape, since those girls are not legally capable of giving free consent.
Epstein knew who those men are, but Epstein can’t talk, because Epstein was found dead in his cell. To this day, the circumstances are highly suspicious. The guards left their posts. The cameras were turned off or didn’t function. The guards then allegedly altered records to conceal their locations. Former Attorney [RINO George Bush and Opus Dei collaborator] Gen. William Barr said he’s satisfied, upon a review of the internal investigation, that Epstein hanged himself, but the results of that investigation have never been made public. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/sing-ghislaine-maxwell-sing_4189304.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-04&mktids=2164b04e22d32ab99628001bc4a429d5&est=Ac5ZY0UedtS98faP15XJ54xyaGpTIjqCgUmqx95QEKMsh1co6V71K%2BcbIPt2]
In November, The Epoch Times showed that the Epstein scandal mirrored the older Franklin scandal that involved the Catholic Boys Town which was part of the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska:
On Dec. 4, demonstrators will rally in New York to protest what they say is a cover-up of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell alleged pedophile network.
“The nonviolent, non-politically partisan demonstration will send a message to the Department of Justice that the American people will not settle for only Maxwell being indicted on one count of child trafficking, because the Epstein/Maxwell child trafficking network had multiple procurers and perpetrators,” event organizer Nick Bryant told The Epoch Times.
According to Bryant, this isn’t the first time the DOJ and FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite.
He would know. One of the leading researchers on sex trafficking networks and child abuse, Bryant made his mark in the Epstein scandal when he obtained and eventually had published Epstein’s infamous black book—revealing the international financier’s numerous high-profile contacts.
But before that, Bryant came across another explosive document that would lead to his sweeping account of what’s now known as the Franklin Scandal—a child sex-trafficking ring that ran rampant throughout the United States in the 1980s…
… Bryant said the report suggests to him that the CIA quashed the investigation into the Finders. Up until that point, Bryant said he didn’t believe in the notion that a sex trafficking ring could operate with government knowledge—or even consent.
“That one document opened up my mind to entertaining ideas that I previously wouldn’t have entertained,” he said.
The Customs report would lead Bryant down a rabbit hole to Omaha, Nebraska, where another sex-trafficking ring was said to have been operated by the head of the now-defunct, eponymous Franklin Federal Credit Union.
Separate state and federal grand juries concluded in 1990 that the Franklin sex-trafficking allegations were a “carefully crafted hoax,” but Bryant’s work suggests that the DOJ and FBI worked to subvert investigations.
For instance, Bryant said the FBI pressured one of the victims, then-21-year-old Alicia Owen, to recant her allegations that she was trafficked by the Franklin network during her adolescence. When Owen refused, she was charged with 16 counts of perjury and served more than four years in prison—about two of them in solitary confinement.
“The authorities wanted to destroy her,” Bryant said.
Franklin victims eventually received some vindication in 1999, when U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom issued a summary judgment against the former Franklin head in civil proceedings. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/before-the-epstein-scandal-there-was-the-franklin-scandal_4130748.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=digitalsub&slsuccess=1]
Former state Senator John DeCamp in his book “The Franklin Cover-Up” wrote about how not only the FBI would do “nothing” to uncover the cover-up, but also the media and the bishop of Omaha:
In May 1992, shortly after the first edition of this book was published, Monsignor Robert Hupp, who had been the head of Boys Town from the late 1970s through the decade of the 1980s – the critical time in question for the Franklin case, contacted me and asked to have a meeting, at which he specified that witnesses must be present. I anticipated that his purpose was to attack me, and to deny what I had written about Boys Town.
I was completely wrong. With two witnesses present, Monsignor Hupp opened our discussion with the simple statement: “John DeCamp, your book stated the game; I hope I can help with some of the names.”
Monsignor Hupp and I then entered into an in-depth discussion on the entire situation involving Boys Town, Larry King, Peter Citron, the pedophile problem in general, and the entire story of the Franklin cover-up. He verified piece after piece of evidence of the Franklin story for me, and provided guidance on other directions in which to look, to develop further proof of the children’s stories of abuse by this country’s wealthy and powerful.
When I asked Monsignor Hupp how this ever could have happened at Boys Town, he looked at me and told me, so apologetically, “I am like the wife who did not know, and was the last to find out. And when I finally did suspect something and tried to act, the Archbishop [Daniel Sheehan] elected to do nothing about it, when I asked him to help. And then, when I came upon something horribly evil, I found public officials and the Church would do nothing – apparently terrified at the damage it would do to the Church and to the entire city of Omaha,” Monsignor Hupp said.
“What are you talking about?” I asked him. “Is there some particular story or incident you are talking about in the book that you have more information about? Please explain what you mean,” I asked the Monsignor.
He then described an incident in 1985, in which a young boy named Shattuck, who lived in Elkhorn, Nebraska, had been sexually abused and then killed. The Monsignor told me that he was certain who had killed the boy, a man he identified as a member of the Catholic clergy in the Omaha Archdiocese. Monsignor Hupp provided precise detail which he said proved beyond any doubt, that the particular individual he named was, in fact, the child’s murderer. {{ |”The Church is plagued by these sexual abuse problems across the country and by the devastating publicity the clergy abuse incidents have caused,” Monsignor Hupp explained. “The Church’s reaction to these sexual abuse problems is, in most cases, to immediately get the clergy member involved out of the state and, if possible, out of the country, and hopefully into treatment. I know that may not be right, but it is a difficult situation to deal with, and simply moving the priest or the brother out of the state or country has been the traditional approach by the Church in America to addressing the problems. In this case, where an innocent child was murdered and where I know that a member of our clergy has done this, I felt I had a moral obligation overriding all other things, to bring the situation to the attention of the appropriate authorities. And I did,” }} Hupp concluded.
The Monsignor then shocked me for the second time that day – and in a way that brought back to me the horrible memories of the Franklin cover-up.
He explained that after he determined that the Catholic Archbishop of Omaha was not going to take action on the case, he then went to the FBI and to the Omaha law enforcement authorities to provide complete details on the child’s murder.
So, what happened as a result of Monsignor Hupp’s actions?
Apparently, nothing. Each year on the anniversary of the child’s murder – now almost ten years – the media talks about the case as still being ‘under investigation’, and street rumors persist about the Catholic clergyman – the one Monsignor Hupp believes killed the child – who was shipped out of state for alcohol treatment right after the murder. In the aftermath of our meeting, Monsignor Hupp ran into his own problems. In September 1992, the Monsignor advised me that he was receiving all kinds of pressure and criticism and was, he feared, being forced to leave Boys Town.
Shortly after that discussion, in a controversy that received national press attention on how resources should be used at Boys Town, Monsignor Hupp was removed from his post. He now lives quietly in a home in West Omaha, Nebraska. Monsignor Hupp has shown incredible courage, as he has continued to provide me direction and assistance in the Franklin investigation and related matters.
Monsignor Hupp is not some 13 year old kid whom the cops say they cannot trust or believe. On the contrary, he is one of America’s most famous and nationally honored clergymen; the author of two best sellers; a former Presidential Appointee as Special Ambassador to the United Nations; and the former head of America’s most famous child care institution (Boys Town). Monsignor Hupp showed his courage yet again, when he repeated his charges a year later to a British TV team making a documentary on the Franklin cover-up, entitled Conspiracy of Silence. [https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Franklin_Cover-up]
Interestingly, Archbishop Sheehan who did “nothing” to uncover the cover-up ordained Cardinal Blase Cupich who is Francis’s right hand man in the United States who said“The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich and https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcupich.html%5D
Ironically, speaking of a “bigger agenda,” Francis apparently is also involved in sex abuse cover-ups.
On Jun 10, 2019, Crux reported a “personal friend” of Francis was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse”:
“Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta… was charged with ‘aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization’…”
“[He was charged] by the prosecutor’s office in the Argentine northern province of Salta. The bishop was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization. Zanchetta, the former bishop of Oran, was accused of “strange behavior” in 2015 when a diocesan secretary found pornographic pictures on the prelate’s phone. The images included gay porn featuring young men, but not minors, as well as images of Zanchetta touching himself. They were allegedly sent to unknown third parties.” [https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/06/10/argentine-bishop-at-heart-of-phone-porn-scandal-charged-with-abusing-seminarians/]
LifeSiteNews reported that “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father”:
“[T]he words of the priest who signed the second document [testimony], “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father.” (LifeSiteNews, “Pope Francis knew of Bishop’s abuse years before Vatican posting, new document indicate,” February 27, 2019)
Francis’s “personal friend” Archbishop Gustavo Zanchetta, who apparently lives “in Casa Santa Marta, where Francis himself resides,” is a gay pervert according to the document. (Lifesitenews, “Vatican sex abuse cover-up unravels as prosecutors home in on bishop protected by Pope Francis,” February 18, 2019)
That is unless the testimony on Zanchetta by Argentinian Church officials is only them lying through their teeth about the “personal friend” of Francis.
Is lying through your teeth about your boss’s “personal friend” something any normal person is going to do?
To put this situation in perspective, imagine President Donald Trump’s personal friend being a pervert who lived in the same residence as the president.
Or better yet, imagine you had a personal friend who was a pervert living in your residence.
What would that say about you?
Generally, most normal people’s personal friends who live in the same residence with them are like them in beliefs and lifestyle or they usually aren’t their friend nor living in their residence.
What does it say, if it is true, that Francis’s “personal friend” who apparently lives in his residence is a gay pervert?
Moreover, on September 24, 2018, LifeSiteNews reported that another “friend” of Francis was protected by him from a credible allegation when he blocked an investigation of a abused woman who credibly accused a group of priests including Francis’s friend Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.
The woman, also, accused, among the group of priests, the pedophile priest Fr. Michael “Hill [of] abus[ing] her in the late 1960s, there were several other priests present and involved. She claims that Murphy-O’Connor was among them”:
“Pope Francis told Cardinal Gerhard Müller in 2013 to stop investigating abuse allegations against British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, according to a highly-placed Vatican source who spoke to Marco Tossati. Murphy-O’Connor, as a member of the “Sankt [St.] Gallen mafia,” played a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope in 2013.”
The website The Eponymous Flower summed up the Francis cover-up:
“Marco Tosatti, together with the Canadian news website LifeSiteNews, now raises serious allegations against Pope Francis. His gratitude to his great election victory went so far as to stop investigations by the Congregation of the Faith against Murphy-O’Connor. Tosatti refers to a ‘Vatican source’, which he describes as a ‘prominent former figure of the Roman Curia.’”
“The incident took place in June 2013, three months after the election of Pope Francis. The Prefect of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, was celebrating Mass with a group of German students when his secretary came to him and whispered in his ear that Pope Francis wanted to speak to him immediately. The Pope does not care if he is celebrating. He wanted to talk to him right now. In the sacristy, the Prefect of Faith met a “frustrated” Francis. He gave him the unequivocal order to immediately stop the initial proceedings against a friend of the pope.” “The ‘Friend of the Pope,’ Tosatti said, was no lesser than Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. There was an investigation against the former Archbishop of Westminister from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of situation reported by a woman claiming to have been abused by a priest at the age of 13/14. For fifteen years she had tried in vain to draw attention to her case without being heard by the competent authorities. The highest competent body was Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. Finally, she turned directly to the Congregation of the Faith in Rome.”[http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/09/pope-stopped-investigation-into-old.html?m=1] Francis’s “friend” Murphy-O’Connor was not only “involved” in the credible allegation of the gang “abuse” of a girl “13 or 14 years of age,” but covered-up for the pedophile Hill: “LifeSiteNews reached out to a reliable source from England who is very well informed about exactly that same lady who had been accusing the English cardinal. According to this English source, the lady has never gone public with her charges. But she has been in contact with Church authorities for about 15 years now, without ever having received a thorough investigation of her claims. This lady is already an acknowledged abuse victim, having received a settlement from the Archdiocese. She had been abused, when she was 13 or 14 years of age, by Father Michael Hill.”
“The pedophile Father Hill was imprisoned for five years in 2002 for abusing three minor children between 10 and 14. He had previously been imprisoned, in 1997, also for abusing children. He is thought to have attacked about 30 boys between his ordination in 1960 and the late 1980s. As The Guardian put it at the time: “His case is particularly notorious because the church’s leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, gave him a post despite warnings that he had abused young boys.” Hill had been moved to different parishes, in spite of the ongoing complaints of parents. Finally he underwent therapy in the 1980s.”
“Murphy-O’Connor, then bishop of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, had appointed Hill in 1985 and made him chaplain at Gatwick Airport. Hill then was charged with abusing a teenager with learning difficulties who had missed a flight and was visiting the airport’s chapel.”
‘As later reports showed, Murphy-O’Connor had been warned by therapists that Hill would be abusive again. Murphy-O’Connor accepted that the diocese should pay compensation to those victims of Hill, but requested their silence on the matter of their abuse. Murphy-O’Connor had also been accused of trying to pay hush money to Father Hill – some £50,000 to buy his silence when he was released from prison. Murphy-O’Connor “utterly” denied that claim. It was said that a junior bishop made the offer on his behalf during a visit to Hill’s Belmarsh prison in London.”
“… As The Guardianputs it: ‘A few months after his election, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was apparently lightheartedly to credit Murphy-O’Connor, when the two met at a papal audience. The pope pointed to his old friend and said, ‘You’re to blame!’”
Leo Zagami, the Italian author of a book on Francis called “l’Ultima Papa?,” also possibly may have connected some more dots in another cover-up case involving Cardinal Godfried Danneels who is seemingly another person who helped Francis:
Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who is a key figure in this network of liberal perverts, is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine since 2010, and is not only a staunch supporter and elector of Pope Francis, but was also a member of the secret and irregular Masonic Lodge known as “The Mafia of San Gallo” ( the St. Gallen Mafia), that has conspired for years behind the scenes, for the progressive and liberal take over of the Church, in a series of secret meetings, that took place in the town of San Gallo in Switzerland, headed by the late Jesuit Cardinal and Freemason, Carlo Maria Martini, described in detail in a biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, dedicated to the now retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who has been heavily criticized for trying to dissuade a victim of sexual abuse from denouncing his perpetrator, a Bishop who was the uncle of the victim, and for this reason during the 2013 Conclave in Belgium, there were those who wondered if he was eligible to even elect the new Pope.
Cover of Godfried Danneels biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens
Godfried Danneels admitted himself to be part of “The Mafia Club of San Gallo” in a public conference available on video:
So Bergoglio under pressure from what is known as “the San Gallo Mafia” which helped him to get elected in 2013, declined to renew Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s mandate, and conveniently replaced him with his deputy, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, 73, a Jesuit. [https://leozagami.com/2017/07/11/jesuit-and-pedophiles-take-over-the-catholic-faith-guided-by-a-secret-masonic-lodge/] Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
James the Convert said…As you should know by now, they’re all tied together. This unholy child sex ring goes way back and involves many clerics and laity, especially politicians. They were all compromised and used as pawns. Hard to fathom that Boys Town was a feeder along with numerous kidnappings. No one would even hint the Church was involved. It isn’t over either. It’s still going on and there is no one brave enough to investigate lest they end up like Loren Schmidt, John DeCamp or, God forbid, Gary Caradori and William Colby.6:23 PM
“Before the Epstein Scandal, There Was the Franklin Scandal” & Archbishop Sheehan who ordained Cupich who is Francis’s USA Right Hand Man
The Epoch Times@EpochTimesAccording to Nick Bryant, the lack of transparency around #JeffreyEpstein and the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial isn’t the first time the #DOJ and #FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite. [https://mobile.twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1465846866155868165]In an interview with WMAQ-TV that same day, Cupich said “The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. He’s got to get on with other things—of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.” When asked about those criticizing the Pope, Cupich responded, “Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino.”[55] Cupich later stated that his remarks were not referring to abuse by clergy, which must be exposed, reported, apologized for, and ended. – Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich]
Yesterday, Dinesh D’Souza wrote about the “conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell’ who was the main pimp for the “Jeffrey Epstein [international] pedophile sex ring”. He asked who were all the “most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous” involved in this ring:
Was it sufficient for Epstein to be the provider of young girls, so that he would be initiated into one of the most privileged circles of the world’s rich and famous?
The critical question here is obviously: Who are these men? This is important to know because there are obviously a considerable number of very powerful individuals roaming around who are sexual criminals of the worst sort. These are not mere participants in a prostitution ring. Rather, they are pedophiles and sex predators who know full well that having sex with underage girls is a form of rape, since those girls are not legally capable of giving free consent.
Epstein knew who those men are, but Epstein can’t talk, because Epstein was found dead in his cell. To this day, the circumstances are highly suspicious. The guards left their posts. The cameras were turned off or didn’t function. The guards then allegedly altered records to conceal their locations. Former Attorney [RINO George Bush and Opus Dei collaborator] Gen. William Barr said he’s satisfied, upon a review of the internal investigation, that Epstein hanged himself, but the results of that investigation have never been made public. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/sing-ghislaine-maxwell-sing_4189304.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-04&mktids=2164b04e22d32ab99628001bc4a429d5&est=Ac5ZY0UedtS98faP15XJ54xyaGpTIjqCgUmqx95QEKMsh1co6V71K%2BcbIPt2]
In November, The Epoch Times showed that the Epstein scandal mirrored the older Franklin scandal that involved the Catholic Boys Town which was part of the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska:
On Dec. 4, demonstrators will rally in New York to protest what they say is a cover-up of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell alleged pedophile network.
“The nonviolent, non-politically partisan demonstration will send a message to the Department of Justice that the American people will not settle for only Maxwell being indicted on one count of child trafficking, because the Epstein/Maxwell child trafficking network had multiple procurers and perpetrators,” event organizer Nick Bryant told The Epoch Times.
According to Bryant, this isn’t the first time the DOJ and FBI have worked to cover up a pedophile network that catered to the country’s political and wealthy elite.
He would know. One of the leading researchers on sex trafficking networks and child abuse, Bryant made his mark in the Epstein scandal when he obtained and eventually had published Epstein’s infamous black book—revealing the international financier’s numerous high-profile contacts.
But before that, Bryant came across another explosive document that would lead to his sweeping account of what’s now known as the Franklin Scandal—a child sex-trafficking ring that ran rampant throughout the United States in the 1980s…
… Bryant said the report suggests to him that the CIA quashed the investigation into the Finders. Up until that point, Bryant said he didn’t believe in the notion that a sex trafficking ring could operate with government knowledge—or even consent.
“That one document opened up my mind to entertaining ideas that I previously wouldn’t have entertained,” he said.
The Customs report would lead Bryant down a rabbit hole to Omaha, Nebraska, where another sex-trafficking ring was said to have been operated by the head of the now-defunct, eponymous Franklin Federal Credit Union.
Separate state and federal grand juries concluded in 1990 that the Franklin sex-trafficking allegations were a “carefully crafted hoax,” but Bryant’s work suggests that the DOJ and FBI worked to subvert investigations.
For instance, Bryant said the FBI pressured one of the victims, then-21-year-old Alicia Owen, to recant her allegations that she was trafficked by the Franklin network during her adolescence. When Owen refused, she was charged with 16 counts of perjury and served more than four years in prison—about two of them in solitary confinement.
“The authorities wanted to destroy her,” Bryant said.
Franklin victims eventually received some vindication in 1999, when U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom issued a summary judgment against the former Franklin head in civil proceedings. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/before-the-epstein-scandal-there-was-the-franklin-scandal_4130748.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=digitalsub&slsuccess=1]
Former state Senator John DeCamp in his book “The Franklin Cover-Up” wrote about how not only the FBI would do “nothing” to uncover the cover-up, but also the media and the bishop of Omaha:
In May 1992, shortly after the first edition of this book was published, Monsignor Robert Hupp, who had been the head of Boys Town from the late 1970s through the decade of the 1980s – the critical time in question for the Franklin case, contacted me and asked to have a meeting, at which he specified that witnesses must be present. I anticipated that his purpose was to attack me, and to deny what I had written about Boys Town.
I was completely wrong. With two witnesses present, Monsignor Hupp opened our discussion with the simple statement: “John DeCamp, your book stated the game; I hope I can help with some of the names.”
Monsignor Hupp and I then entered into an in-depth discussion on the entire situation involving Boys Town, Larry King, Peter Citron, the pedophile problem in general, and the entire story of the Franklin cover-up. He verified piece after piece of evidence of the Franklin story for me, and provided guidance on other directions in which to look, to develop further proof of the children’s stories of abuse by this country’s wealthy and powerful.
When I asked Monsignor Hupp how this ever could have happened at Boys Town, he looked at me and told me, so apologetically, “I am like the wife who did not know, and was the last to find out. And when I finally did suspect something and tried to act, the Archbishop [Daniel Sheehan] elected to do nothing about it, when I asked him to help. And then, when I came upon something horribly evil, I found public officials and the Church would do nothing – apparently terrified at the damage it would do to the Church and to the entire city of Omaha,” Monsignor Hupp said.
“What are you talking about?” I asked him. “Is there some particular story or incident you are talking about in the book that you have more information about? Please explain what you mean,” I asked the Monsignor.
He then described an incident in 1985, in which a young boy named Shattuck, who lived in Elkhorn, Nebraska, had been sexually abused and then killed. The Monsignor told me that he was certain who had killed the boy, a man he identified as a member of the Catholic clergy in the Omaha Archdiocese. Monsignor Hupp provided precise detail which he said proved beyond any doubt, that the particular individual he named was, in fact, the child’s murderer. {{ |”The Church is plagued by these sexual abuse problems across the country and by the devastating publicity the clergy abuse incidents have caused,” Monsignor Hupp explained. “The Church’s reaction to these sexual abuse problems is, in most cases, to immediately get the clergy member involved out of the state and, if possible, out of the country, and hopefully into treatment. I know that may not be right, but it is a difficult situation to deal with, and simply moving the priest or the brother out of the state or country has been the traditional approach by the Church in America to addressing the problems. In this case, where an innocent child was murdered and where I know that a member of our clergy has done this, I felt I had a moral obligation overriding all other things, to bring the situation to the attention of the appropriate authorities. And I did,” }} Hupp concluded.
The Monsignor then shocked me for the second time that day – and in a way that brought back to me the horrible memories of the Franklin cover-up.
He explained that after he determined that the Catholic Archbishop of Omaha was not going to take action on the case, he then went to the FBI and to the Omaha law enforcement authorities to provide complete details on the child’s murder.
So, what happened as a result of Monsignor Hupp’s actions?
Apparently, nothing. Each year on the anniversary of the child’s murder – now almost ten years – the media talks about the case as still being ‘under investigation’, and street rumors persist about the Catholic clergyman – the one Monsignor Hupp believes killed the child – who was shipped out of state for alcohol treatment right after the murder. In the aftermath of our meeting, Monsignor Hupp ran into his own problems. In September 1992, the Monsignor advised me that he was receiving all kinds of pressure and criticism and was, he feared, being forced to leave Boys Town.
Shortly after that discussion, in a controversy that received national press attention on how resources should be used at Boys Town, Monsignor Hupp was removed from his post. He now lives quietly in a home in West Omaha, Nebraska. Monsignor Hupp has shown incredible courage, as he has continued to provide me direction and assistance in the Franklin investigation and related matters.
Monsignor Hupp is not some 13 year old kid whom the cops say they cannot trust or believe. On the contrary, he is one of America’s most famous and nationally honored clergymen; the author of two best sellers; a former Presidential Appointee as Special Ambassador to the United Nations; and the former head of America’s most famous child care institution (Boys Town). Monsignor Hupp showed his courage yet again, when he repeated his charges a year later to a British TV team making a documentary on the Franklin cover-up, entitled Conspiracy of Silence. [https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Franklin_Cover-up]
Interestingly, Archbishop Sheehan who did “nothing” to uncover the cover-up ordained Cardinal Blase Cupich who is Francis’s right hand man in the United States who said“The Pope has a bigger agenda [than sex abuse cover-ups]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blase_J._Cupich and https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcupich.html%5D
Ironically, speaking of a “bigger agenda,” Francis apparently is also involved in sex abuse cover-ups.
On Jun 10, 2019, Crux reported a “personal friend” of Francis was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse”:
“Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta… was charged with ‘aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization’…”
“[He was charged] by the prosecutor’s office in the Argentine northern province of Salta. The bishop was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization. Zanchetta, the former bishop of Oran, was accused of “strange behavior” in 2015 when a diocesan secretary found pornographic pictures on the prelate’s phone. The images included gay porn featuring young men, but not minors, as well as images of Zanchetta touching himself. They were allegedly sent to unknown third parties.” [https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/06/10/argentine-bishop-at-heart-of-phone-porn-scandal-charged-with-abusing-seminarians/]
LifeSiteNews reported that “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father”:
“[T]he words of the priest who signed the second document [testimony], “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father.” (LifeSiteNews, “Pope Francis knew of Bishop’s abuse years before Vatican posting, new document indicate,” February 27, 2019)
Francis’s “personal friend” Archbishop Gustavo Zanchetta, who apparently lives “in Casa Santa Marta, where Francis himself resides,” is a gay pervert according to the document. (Lifesitenews, “Vatican sex abuse cover-up unravels as prosecutors home in on bishop protected by Pope Francis,” February 18, 2019)
That is unless the testimony on Zanchetta by Argentinian Church officials is only them lying through their teeth about the “personal friend” of Francis.
Is lying through your teeth about your boss’s “personal friend” something any normal person is going to do?
To put this situation in perspective, imagine President Donald Trump’s personal friend being a pervert who lived in the same residence as the president.
Or better yet, imagine you had a personal friend who was a pervert living in your residence.
What would that say about you?
Generally, most normal people’s personal friends who live in the same residence with them are like them in beliefs and lifestyle or they usually aren’t their friend nor living in their residence.
What does it say, if it is true, that Francis’s “personal friend” who apparently lives in his residence is a gay pervert?
Moreover, on September 24, 2018, LifeSiteNews reported that another “friend” of Francis was protected by him from a credible allegation when he blocked an investigation of a abused woman who credibly accused a group of priests including Francis’s friend Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.
The woman, also, accused, among the group of priests, the pedophile priest Fr. Michael “Hill [of] abus[ing] her in the late 1960s, there were several other priests present and involved. She claims that Murphy-O’Connor was among them”:
“Pope Francis told Cardinal Gerhard Müller in 2013 to stop investigating abuse allegations against British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, according to a highly-placed Vatican source who spoke to Marco Tossati. Murphy-O’Connor, as a member of the “Sankt [St.] Gallen mafia,” played a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope in 2013.”
The website The Eponymous Flower summed up the Francis cover-up:
“Marco Tosatti, together with the Canadian news website LifeSiteNews, now raises serious allegations against Pope Francis. His gratitude to his great election victory went so far as to stop investigations by the Congregation of the Faith against Murphy-O’Connor. Tosatti refers to a ‘Vatican source’, which he describes as a ‘prominent former figure of the Roman Curia.’”
“The incident took place in June 2013, three months after the election of Pope Francis. The Prefect of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, was celebrating Mass with a group of German students when his secretary came to him and whispered in his ear that Pope Francis wanted to speak to him immediately. The Pope does not care if he is celebrating. He wanted to talk to him right now. In the sacristy, the Prefect of Faith met a “frustrated” Francis. He gave him the unequivocal order to immediately stop the initial proceedings against a friend of the pope.” “The ‘Friend of the Pope,’ Tosatti said, was no lesser than Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. There was an investigation against the former Archbishop of Westminister from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of situation reported by a woman claiming to have been abused by a priest at the age of 13/14. For fifteen years she had tried in vain to draw attention to her case without being heard by the competent authorities. The highest competent body was Cardinal Murphy-O-Connor. Finally, she turned directly to the Congregation of the Faith in Rome.”[http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/09/pope-stopped-investigation-into-old.html?m=1] Francis’s “friend” Murphy-O’Connor was not only “involved” in the credible allegation of the gang “abuse” of a girl “13 or 14 years of age,” but covered-up for the pedophile Hill: “LifeSiteNews reached out to a reliable source from England who is very well informed about exactly that same lady who had been accusing the English cardinal. According to this English source, the lady has never gone public with her charges. But she has been in contact with Church authorities for about 15 years now, without ever having received a thorough investigation of her claims. This lady is already an acknowledged abuse victim, having received a settlement from the Archdiocese. She had been abused, when she was 13 or 14 years of age, by Father Michael Hill.”
“The pedophile Father Hill was imprisoned for five years in 2002 for abusing three minor children between 10 and 14. He had previously been imprisoned, in 1997, also for abusing children. He is thought to have attacked about 30 boys between his ordination in 1960 and the late 1980s. As The Guardian put it at the time: “His case is particularly notorious because the church’s leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, gave him a post despite warnings that he had abused young boys.” Hill had been moved to different parishes, in spite of the ongoing complaints of parents. Finally he underwent therapy in the 1980s.”
“Murphy-O’Connor, then bishop of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, had appointed Hill in 1985 and made him chaplain at Gatwick Airport. Hill then was charged with abusing a teenager with learning difficulties who had missed a flight and was visiting the airport’s chapel.”
‘As later reports showed, Murphy-O’Connor had been warned by therapists that Hill would be abusive again. Murphy-O’Connor accepted that the diocese should pay compensation to those victims of Hill, but requested their silence on the matter of their abuse. Murphy-O’Connor had also been accused of trying to pay hush money to Father Hill – some £50,000 to buy his silence when he was released from prison. Murphy-O’Connor “utterly” denied that claim. It was said that a junior bishop made the offer on his behalf during a visit to Hill’s Belmarsh prison in London.”
“… As The Guardianputs it: ‘A few months after his election, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was apparently lightheartedly to credit Murphy-O’Connor, when the two met at a papal audience. The pope pointed to his old friend and said, ‘You’re to blame!’”
Leo Zagami, the Italian author of a book on Francis called “l’Ultima Papa?,” also possibly may have connected some more dots in another cover-up case involving Cardinal Godfried Danneels who is seemingly another person who helped Francis:
Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who is a key figure in this network of liberal perverts, is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine since 2010, and is not only a staunch supporter and elector of Pope Francis, but was also a member of the secret and irregular Masonic Lodge known as “The Mafia of San Gallo” ( the St. Gallen Mafia), that has conspired for years behind the scenes, for the progressive and liberal take over of the Church, in a series of secret meetings, that took place in the town of San Gallo in Switzerland, headed by the late Jesuit Cardinal and Freemason, Carlo Maria Martini, described in detail in a biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, dedicated to the now retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who has been heavily criticized for trying to dissuade a victim of sexual abuse from denouncing his perpetrator, a Bishop who was the uncle of the victim, and for this reason during the 2013 Conclave in Belgium, there were those who wondered if he was eligible to even elect the new Pope.
Cover of Godfried Danneels biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens
Godfried Danneels admitted himself to be part of “The Mafia Club of San Gallo” in a public conference available on video:
So Bergoglio under pressure from what is known as “the San Gallo Mafia” which helped him to get elected in 2013, declined to renew Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s mandate, and conveniently replaced him with his deputy, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, 73, a Jesuit. [https://leozagami.com/2017/07/11/jesuit-and-pedophiles-take-over-the-catholic-faith-guided-by-a-secret-masonic-lodge/] Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Rip’s NewsletterInboxRip McIntosh <newsletter@ripmcintosh.info> UnsubscribeJan 1, 2022, 4:15 PM (23 hours ago)to meJanuary 1, 2022___________________________________________________>Victor Davis Hanson – The Ungracious—and Their Demonization of the Past>Mark E. Meengs M.D – Current Thoughts on Covid 19___________________________________________________If I followed my usual practice ofboldfacingsections I consider of particular importance, Dr. Hanson’s entire essay would so appear. I suggest it be read carefully and repeatedly, and shared widely The Ungracious—and Their Demonization of the Past By: Victor Davis HansonThe Epoch TimesDecember 30, 2021 The last two years have seen an unprecedented escalation in a decades-long war on the American past. But there are lots of logical flaws in attacking prior generations in U.S. history.Critics assume their judgmental generation is morally superior to those of the past. So, they use their standards to condemn the mute dead who supposedly do not measure up to them.Yet 21st-century critics rarely acknowledge their present affluence and leisure owe much to history’s prior generations whose toil helped create their current comfort.And what may future scolds say of the modern generation that saw over 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, even as fetal viability outside the womb continued to progress to ever earlier ages?What will our grandchildren say of us who dumped on them over $30 trillion in national debt—much of it as borrowing for entitlements for ourselves?What sort of society snoozes as record numbers of murders continue in 12 of its major cities? What is so civilized about defunding the police, endemic smash-and-grab thefts, and carjackings?Was our media more responsible, professional, and learned in 1965 or 2021? Did Hollywood make more sophisticated and enjoyable films in 1954 or 2021? Was there less or more sportsmanship among professional athletes in 1990 or 2021?Was it moral to discard the “content of our character” and“equal opportunity” principles of the prior Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago? Are their replacement fixations on the “color of our skin” and “equality of result” superior?Would America have won World War II with the current labor participation rate of only six in 10 Americans working? Would our generation have brought all American troops home and quit World War I in fear of the deadly 1918 Spanish flu pandemic?Are we proud that most standardized tests of student knowledge and achievement continue to decline, despite record investments in education?Do we ever pause to consider that we enjoy our modern standard of living and security because we were once a meritocracy that quit judging our workforce by tribal affinities and ancient prejudices?Our generation talks of infrastructure nonstop. But when was the last time it built anything comparable to the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, or the California Water Project—much less sent a man back to the moon or beyond?If prior generations were so toxic, why do we continue to take for granted the moral and material world they bequeathed to us, from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to our airports, freeways, and power plants? Did we ever defeat anything comparable to the Axis powers or Soviet communism?We know the symptoms of the current epidemic of hating the past.One is Orwellian renaming and statue-toppling. Historical revision often responds to puritanical mob frenzies rather than to democratic discussion and votes of relevant elected officials.Where is the pantheon of woke heroes who will replace the toppled or defaced Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt?Whose morality and achievement should instead be immortalized? Were the public and private lives of Che Guevara, Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Margaret Sanger, and Franklin D. Roosevelt without sin?Racial fixations tend predictably in one direction. In good Confederate fashion, we lump all individuals who look alike into inexact collectives of “white,” “black,” or “brown”—often to stereotype the supposed evils of so-called white supremacy.But if we go down that tribalist and simplistic road of caricatured oppressors and oppressed, will future generations tally up each group’s merits and demerits, to adjudicate the roles of millions of individuals in making America worse or better?What standard would they use to judge our ignorant world of racial stereotyping—proportional representation in Nobel Prizes, philanthropy, scientific breakthroughs, or lasting art, music, and literature versus statistics on homicides, assault, divorce, and illegitimacy?Immigration—when legal, diverse, measured, and often meritocratic—has been the great strength of America, as typified by industrious arrivals who chose to abandon their homeland to risk new lives in the foreign United States.But if America is so flawed and so irredeemable, why in fiscal year 2021 are nearly 2 million foreigners now crashing its borders—illegally, en masse, and intent on reaching a supposedly racist nation that is purportedly inferior to those they abandon?According to the ancient brutal bargain, assimilation and integration grant the immigrant as much claim to America’s present and past as the native-born. But then shouldn’t the antithesis also be true?Shouldn’t immigrants at least respect those of the past who created the very country they now so eagerly desire, and died in awful places from Valley Forge to Bastogne to preserve?Never in history has such a mediocre, but self-important and ungracious generation owed so much, and yet expressed so little gratitude, to its now dead forebears.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE UNGRACIOUS, AND THEIR DEMONIZATION OF THE PAST
Why the Skojec-Martinez Debate Happened? & Might Dr. Kwasniewski & other Francis Trads be in a “Culture of Fear” that makes them have to think it’s an Infallible Dogma that Francis can’t be an Antipope?
Some people think I’ve been unfriendly to Francis Traditionalists such as Steve Skojec (and Eric Sammons). Both of whom are in my prayers. I hope they pray for me. I don’t know Sammons, but I knew Skojec through a friendly email correspondences. That friendly exchange of emails ended in 2019 shortly after I wrote the post “How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?“:
How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: One to change the light bulb and one to change it back.
How many thought polices does it take to screw a light bulb?
None: There never was any light bulb.
In the serious side, please pray for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. I consider him to be a man of great learning and courage especially for signing the Open Letter.
One can only imagine the culture of fear that surrounds him which caused him to change a short Amazon review at least three times on Antonio Socci’s book which just presents evidence that Pope Francis may be a Antipope.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Dr. Kwasniewski.[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/05/how-many-dr-kwasnieskis-does-it-take-to.html]
At the time I was working full-time and posting as best I could for The Catholic Monitor (which may happen again in 2022 because a source of income for the last two years has recently disappeared which allowed me to devote an almost full-time effort to my website during that time).
Anyway, after I posted the above piece, I soon received a series of emails from the then publisher of One Peter Five (1P5), Skojec, who was apparently unhappy with it. We got into a discussion on my website that is now called the Skojec-Martinez Debate.
In The Catholic Monitor comment section, during the debate, the former 1P5 publisher said “I invited you to publish the whole [email] correspondence we had TODAY. This is one of the most convoluted and excessively discursive things I’ve seen from you, Fred.” [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/monitor-be-man-admit-that-your-theory.html]
This invitation is brought up because I want to post the email conversation I had with him by his permission and to see if others find that he seemed to be a bit sensitive about my bringing up the seeming “culture of fear that surround[ed]” Dr. Kwasniewski.
Here’s the exchange:
Steve Skojec(steve@onepeterfive.com): I’m not calling him a liar. I’m saying he recognized he wasn’t sufficiently clear. He told me from the outset he wasn’t 100% convinced, even though he thought Socci made a persuasive case. He realized after I asked him about it that he hadn’t been as clear as he meant to be. But now everyone in Benevacantism land is accusing him of dishonesty driven by fear. Peter doesn’t just work with me, he’s a friend. I don’t take kindly to these attacks on my friends. Universal Acceptance is a long-established understanding of the Church that enjoys a consensus of theologians. It’s not “my theory”. And it’s certainly not a fraud. You mistake the fact that your arguments don’t merit as much attention as you want them to have for fear. I have no fear of an investigation, I have no fear that your theory will ever be proven correct. You’re on the wrong side of history, and I have faith that this will be proven in time. As for daring me, what are you, a child? How about instead of making dares, you find a way to write a succinct, point-by-point iteration of your thesis, along with documentary evidence. Make an attempt to prove your case in less than a thousand words. Use bullet points or numbers. Give your critics an opportunity to respond to something less meandering than post after post of conjecture, or two-hour long rants from Ann, etc. Can you actually make the case? If you did, I’d consider a refutation. I’m not going to do the work of tidying up a bunch of sloppy thinking to offer a rebuttal that you’ll only dismiss out of pure confirmation bias. Let’s deal in facts instead. Can any of you actually make an elevator pitch for your thesis that is compelling? I highly doubt it. Steve SkojecPublisher & Executive DirectorOnePeterFive.comDo you like 1P5? Want to support our work? Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution today!On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:52 PM Fred Martinez wrote:
You are the one calling him a liar.
You need to be a man.
You need to come out about it and admit that your theory about “universal acceptance” is a fraud or counter what we have thrown in your face.
Be a man about it and don’t run away hiding from everything Bishop Gracida and I presented to you. I dare you to do a piece countering us point by point on IP5.
PS- It appears you didn’t get the sarcasm in the reply I send you on your email to me on Dr. Kwasniewski.
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android deviceOn Jun 2, 2019 7:17 PM, Steve Skojec <steve@onepeterfive.com> wrote: You should just come right out and call him a liar. At least be a man about it.
Steve Skojec Publisher & Executive Director OnePeterFive.comOn Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:33 PM Fred Martinez wrote:
Steve,
I agree. Dr. Kwasniewskis expressed himself very clearly in his revision from “who have proved in detail” to “who argue” and from “persuaded me otherwise” to “gave me much to think about.”
Best,
Fred
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android deviceOn Jun 1, 2019 7:03 AM, Steve Skojec <steve@onepeterfive.com> wrote: Culture of fear, eh? Has it occurred to you, Fred, that perhaps Dr. Kwasniewski is simply concerned about expressing his mind clearly? As someone who publishes him on a regular basis, I can tell you he makes iterative revisions to many of his pieces, sometimes even after they’re published. He’s a very particular thinker, and wants to get things right. On a topic this important, I think that’s an admirable trait. Steve SkojecPublisher & Executive DirectorOnePeterFive.com
I could be wrong, but this exchange still makes me think that it is possible that Dr. Kwasniewski and other Francis Traditionalists may be in a “culture of fear” that makes them have to think it’s an infallible dogma that Francis can’t be an antipope.
One more thing, I want to say in some ways I admire Steve Skojec because unlike most of the other Francis Trads he was willing to argue about his ideas whereas almost all the rest run away to their high Catholic media towers without giving a fight. I also thought he came up with some funny lines such as calling me a “rambler” at one point because of my sometimes “excessively discursive” posts. I loved it. At the time, I remember singing my new theme song “Rambling Fred” to the tune of the 1960s hit song “Rambling Rose.”
Lastly, Skojec forced me to put my argument in an “elevator pitch” when he said “Can any of you actually make an elevator pitch for your thesis that is compelling?” I’ll end with my “elevator pitch” to him:
Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.
To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no .[5 Dubia Questions for 1P5’s Steve Skojec – The Catholic Monitor]Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Madonna of the Book Painting by Sandro Botticelli. The Madonna of the Book, or the Madonna del Libro, is a small painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli, and is preserved in the Poldi Pezzoli Museum in Milan. The painting is executed in tempera on panel. It dates from between 1480 and 1483.
“She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn… The angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.’”—Luke 2:7, 10-14
“She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn… The angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.’”—Luke 2:7, 10-14
The United States was founded on the idea of the inherent nobility of work. A nation of free, self-sufficient homesteaders believed their hard labor could ensure their prosperity, liberty, and autonomy.
Through our 233 years as a nation, the American national ethic, our various religions, even our popular culture stressed the character-building nature of labor – and its pathway to personal self-sufficiency and a prosperous and powerful nation of industrious citizens.
When World War II broke out on Sept. 1, 1939, an isolationist, underemployed, and neutral America was still in the throes of serial Depression-era recessions. Its military was undermanned and nearly unarmed.
Yet 80 years ago, after entering the war on Dec. 11, 1941, in the aftermath of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans – men and women, teenagers and the elderly, all races and religions – worked nonstop, 24-7 as no nation has before or since.
Less than four years later, the U.S. won the war, by enrolling over 12 million men and women in uniform. Its economy was larger than those of all the major combatants –Britain, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan – put together.
The U.S. Navy was not just the largest sea power in the world. Its thousands of newly built ships were also more numerous than all the navies of the world combined.
America did not fall back into recession after World War II. Instead, its work ethic grew in peace. Labor created a massive interstate highway system, millions of new suburban homes, and thousands of new airports and skyscrapers.
Americans created so much capital and wealth that they could afford to be the most generous people in the world and supported what was then called government “relief “or ‘welfare” for the indigent, the ill, the elderly, and the disabled who could not work.
To suggest that the government curtail incentives not to work is considered insensitive, even mean-spirited.
The work ethic persisted even amid the hippie cultural upheavals of the “tune in, turn on, drop out” 1960s. Teens still looked forward to summer and part-time jobs instead of dependence on parental allowances. The nation worked feverishly on the space program, massive water reclamation projects, and won the Cold War by simply outproducing communism.
Apprentice carpenters, plumbers, and electricians often began steady work at 18. “Working your way through college” was a given for students – in the days before trillion-dollar federal loan programs and subsidies.
Yet the present labor participation rate stubbornly has dipped even lower to about only 62% of the available workforce. Currently, signs like “Now Hiring” and “Help Wanted” dot nearly every city block and suburban mall in America.
Trucks and vans drive the freeways with painted ads “Workers Wanted”. The recovering economy is starting to sputter. Everything from supply chain shortages to inflation is attributed to shortages of labor.
Some nonparticipation is no doubt due to fears over contracting COVID-19.
The worker shortage is also caused by early retirements. And there is a lack of affordable child care for working parents, whose children for nearly two years have been stuck at home, locked out of schools.
But all that said, much of the blame for our current crippling labor shortages is also because of state and federal serial supplemental entitlements. The cash handouts ostensibly started as necessary but temporary support during the pandemic. But they now persist as a sort of de facto guaranteed income that often pays better than joining the workforce.
There has been relatively little pushback against this new idleness. To suggest that the government curtail incentives not to work is considered insensitive, even mean-spirited.
Few make the argument that it is far more immoral that millions of the able are not working in full expectation that millions of others will work. And the employed must work even harder to produce food for the healthy nonparticipants, to ensure their gas and power supplies, to keep them safe at home and abroad – and to subsidize their idleness.
There is a danger when generations of America grow accustomed to not working – they may have forgotten why and how to work.
Psychologically, citizens can become prolonged adolescents who lose the confidence that comes from independence from government and the ensuing sense of achievement that only work provides.
Have we also lost the idea that a collectively hard-working America is needed more than ever to remain competitive with rival nations?
China especially boasts its economy and military will soon surpass our own, in the fashion that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev once boasted over America, “We will bury you”.
Let us hope we will rediscover the work ethos of an earlier generation and keep safe by outworking our enemies, while we become happier and better Americans – the more we are all busy and employed.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Our culture has always (up to now) stressed the character-building nature of labor – and its pathway to personal self-sufficiency and a prosperous and powerful nation of industrious citizens.
Madonna of the Book Painting by Sandro Botticelli. The Madonna of the Book, or the Madonna del Libro, is a small painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli, and is preserved in the Poldi Pezzoli Museum in Milan. The painting is executed in tempera on panel. It dates from between 1480 and 1483.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.