NOW IS THE TIME TO LAUNCH THE COUNTER-RESET!!!

https://www.fromrome.info/2021/09/25/now-is-the-time-to-launch-the-counter-reset/

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NOW IS THE TIME TO LAUNCH THE COUNTER-RESET!!!

NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR FELLOW MEN

https://www.fromrome.info/2021/09/25/now-is-the-time-to-launch-the-counter-reset/

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR FELLOW MEN

Catholic doctrine teaches us that any act performed without full understanding and without deliberate consent cannot be considered morally sinful: this is also true in the specific case of the so-called vaccines.There remains the very serious moral responsibility of those who, constituted in authority, have exerted pressure on their subjects — both in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres — to persuade them to undergo vaccination.
    Letter #124, 2021, Sunday, September 26: Viganò Tape #15        We have now posted Tape #15 of The Viganò Tapes on Rumble (link) and YouTube (link).    These are a series of 18 video tapes where Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responds to 18 of our questions.    We plan to post tapes #16 through #18 over the next three days.    Also, below, I post an important and sensitive question from a reader in Australia, and an answer to the question Archbishop Viganò sent to me which I do not want you to overlook. —RM    ***    Here is Question #15, and the beginning of the archbishop’s answer:    Question #15: What is your view on the promises of the Enlightenment – primarily liberty, equality and fraternity. Were these promises authentic? Or were they deceptions to corrupt and subvert the monarchies, the aristocracy, and the Church?    Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Like everything that does not come from God, so also Enlightenment thought is mendacious and false, since it promises an unattainable paradise on earth, a human utopia based on an immanentism that contradicts the objective reality of a personal and transcendent God. (…)                 =================    A Reader’s Important Question    I received this question in an email on September 21 from a woman in Australia named Louise:    Good morning Robert,    I am sure there will be many who will write as I do now. Archbishop Viganò says in his answer to your Question #10, if I am not mistaken, that accepting the vaccination is to undergo a Satanic baptism and receive the mark of the beast! This is a very troubling statement because most of us have family members and friends who have accepted vaccination under coercion through fear propagated by the media led by their own governments. The Church as you know is not leading us in another direction!    Robert, I know some good Catholics, TLM attendees, totally orthodox, older people, who because of the tears and pleadings of one of their adult children, consulted with their parish priest. And that Priest assured them that agreeing to be vaccinated was NOT the mark of the beast; in fact he himself was vaccinated so that he would be able to enter people’s homes in the future. And he added that the Order of Nuns in the Parish are also being vaccinated for the same reason.      Most people are bamboozled, propagandized, confused, anxious and terrified of the virus because they have accepted only the information from the mainstream media. The bulk of people act this way. That is why we are called sheep because sheep watch what the leading sheep do and follow suit!    I suspect it is because most people cannot consider the idea that their own Government would deceive them. That for most people is too much to believe. So to get rid of the anxiety they feel, living in this state of uncertainty, they agree to receive the vaccine. So many people have done this. They have stopped thinking. When you speak with them, they talk of feeling a great relief.      I fully realise that the description of the mark of the beast mentions in scripture that without it no one will be able to buy or sell, and that could potentially describe some kind of vaccine passport in the future. But I don’t think we are there yet. I believe rather that this first wave is pure genocide which has rolled out – at least there are many medical experts who are saying the longer term effects of chronic poor health will be visible within 2 to 3 years for perhaps 70% of global society. So once the bulk of humanity have been wounded in their health, they will be more easily controlled.      Robert, would you please ask Archbishop Viganò whether he expressed himself precisely in this regard. I believe many people will be wounded by his comment because they did not realise the connection with the satanic project. God bless you!    —Louise (in Australia)      I brought the letter to the attention of the archbishop, writing:        A quite interesting and perhaps important letter from a reader in Australia. Could you possibly attempt an answer? I know you are working on many things.     —Robert    The archbishop then responded on September 24 as follows (the text is my English translation of his Italian original):    Question #10a: Your Excellency, don’t you find that saying that vaccination represents a sort of Satanic baptism may sound a bit strong for many Catholics who have allowed themselves to be persuaded, in good faith, to receive the vaccine?Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Thank you for asking me this question, which allows me to clarify my thought and to encourage those faithful who, for various reasons, have received the vaccinations.My statement on the satanic symbolism of the vaccine and on the fact that it can represent a “mark of the Beast” concerns the intentions of those who have decided to create a pandemic in order to be able to use maliciously as a pretext for the completion of the Great Reset in preparation for the establishment of the New World Order. It is the Luciferian elite that gives this almost esoteric connotation to the vaccine, as well as attributing ritual and liturgical features to the entire pandemic.     I intended my expression as hyperbole, aimed at highlighting the most disturbing aspects of the entire pandemic farce.[Translator’s note: Hyperbole is the use of “a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in ‘I could sleep for a year’ or ‘This book weighs a ton’”; hyperbole is “in rhetoric, an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement or assertion not intended to be understood literally.”]Conversely, the simple believer who, even on the advice of his parish priest or spiritual director, or under the pressure of the media and health institutions, allows himself to be persuaded to receive an inoculation has no fault, nor can the grave responsibility of wishing, with that vaccine, to apostatize from the Catholic Faith and be branded with the “mark of the Beast” be attributed to him or her.It should also be remembered that — as happened also for people I know and for some of my relatives — the administration of the gene serum has often been imposed under threat or coercion, allowing people to be able to use certain services, to be able to access certain places or even — as happens today in Italy — to be able to keep one’s job only if you are in possession of a health passport and if one has received the so-called vaccine. Even many priests, in order to exercise their ministry and to be able to access hospitals or shelters to administer the sacraments, have been forced to get vaccinated, often on the orders of their bishop.It is disconcerting that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has lent itself to acting as a sounding board for the “deep Church” and its head, at a time when a precise and unequivocal clarifying intervention would have been helpful and necessary. Instead, we see with what haste the CDF has rushed to give moral legitimacy to experimental drugs without even knowing their components, since they are covered by industrial secrecy; with what ease the use of cell lines deriving from abortions has been declared morally acceptable, distorting Catholic teaching with the sole purpose of pleasing Bergoglio and the pandemic narrative. “Many moral heresies of our time also contain quotations from St. Thomas and other Doctors of the Church,” rightly observed Bishop Athanasius Schneider in his recent interview (here). This haste — in perfect harmony with the climate of emergency that has legitimized unfortunate choices even by the civil authorities, under the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry — has meant that the Note of the Congregation appears to be superficial and incomplete, because it does not take into account the serious side effects, both short-term and long-term, of the gene serum. The Congregation is silent about the abortions induced to pregnant mothers, which have increased exorbitantly; it is silent about the risk of sterility induced by the serum; it is silent about the serious pathologies and deaths it causes in children and young people, who are also the least exposed to the risk of hospitalization due to Covid.Finally, the new mRNA technology now being used widely on human beings for the first time is a treatment that cannot really be described as a “vaccine,” but is a pharmaceutical substance or therapy which up until now has clearly been ineffective and had harmful side-effects; and no one can say with certainty what long-term genetic changes will be caused by the inoculation of the Spike protein. The demonstrated ineffectiveness of these “vaccines” deprives them of the lawfulness initially granted to them by the Congregation, since the danger to which the patient exposes himself or herself is disproportionate to the benefit — minimal or non-existent — that they initially were said to ensure. Despite all these arguments, Bergoglio has become an active testimonial of these “vaccines,” demonstrating with this endorsement the intrinsic link that binds the “deep church” and the “deep state.” If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not want to totally lose its moral authority, it is necessary to revisit this question in the light of the data now available and of the scientific evidence now recognized by the scientific community, even if data and evidence is censored by the mainstream media.The implications of the gene serum are essentially moral, and as such cannot be considered marginal, even if the normal exercise of one’s daily activities or the possibility of exercising one’s priestly ministry may depends on accepting them. My confrere Bishop Schneider affirms: “An uncompromising and unequivocal refusal of any collaboration with the fetal industry is analogous to the uncompromising refusal of any collaboration with the cult of idols or the statue of the Emperor by Christians in the early centuries.” But what intransigence can we expect, when Bergoglio accuses those who want to remain faithful to the Magisterium of “rigidity” and “fundamentalism” and never misses an opportunity to mock and insult those who do not accept the deviations that he imposes with oppressive authoritarianism?Still, I would like to remind those who have undergone vaccination that, where there is no awareness of the nature of the experimental gene serum or where in good faith the civil and ecclesiastical authorities have been trusted, I believe that in no way should the individual faithful feel “guilty” for having been vaccinated. In fact, Catholic doctrine teaches us that any act performed without full understanding and without deliberate consent cannot be considered morally sinful: this is also true in the specific case of the so-called vaccines.There remains the very serious moral responsibility of those who, constituted in authority, have exerted pressure on their subjects — both in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres — to persuade them to undergo vaccination. The consequences for everyone’s health, including deaths and permanent impairments, weigh like boulders on the conscience of the health authorities and even more so on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, who will have to answer before God for their own faults and for those that they have allowed to be committed against their subjects.Let us pray that the Lord will preserve His children from those harms that, with guilty superficiality or, worse, with criminal complicity, have been caused to so many innocent people, who have trusted the authority and the word of those who are respectively responsible for the protection of health of the soul and the body. —Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, September 24, 2021
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on

HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

House Democrats Pass Most Radical Pro-Abortion Bill Ever, Overturning Every Pro-Life Law Nationwide

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   Sep 24, 2021   |   12:02PM   |  Washington, DC

The U.S. House passed a radical pro-abortion bill Friday that would force states to legalize the killing of unborn babies in abortions without limits up to birth nation-wide.

The deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act passed in a 218-211 vote with one Democrat joining Republicans in voting against it. No Republicans supported the pro-abortion legislation.

Democrat leaders portrayed the bill as the “codification” of Roe v. Wade into federal law, but the legislation goes far beyond Roe.

Pro-life leaders said the Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act is a more accurate name for the bill. The legislation would erase basically all restrictions on abortion and prevent states from enacting even modest protections for unborn babies. Limits on late-term abortions and bans on sex-selection abortions would be gone.

The legislation would get rid of laws that protect women and girls, too, including parental consent for minors and informed consent laws that ensure mothers receive basic facts about their unborn baby’s development before going through with an abortion.

LifeNews is now on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

The text of the bill states, “A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements,” and then lists numerous examples of pro-life laws and regulations.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, a leading pro-life congressman from New Jersey, lamented how abortion activists have gone to extraordinary lengths for decades to ignore “the battered baby victim” of abortion.

“For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would legally enable the death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time until birth,” Smith said.

He pointed to a 2021 Marist poll that found 65 percent of Americans support allowing states to enact restrictions on abortion – something the bill would stop them from doing.

Prior to the vote, U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a pro-life Republican from Washington state, said the bill is much more radical than Roe v. Wade.

She urged lawmakers to protect children like her son Cole who has Down syndrome. Rodgers said many unborn babies with Down syndrome are targeted for abortions and the bill would allow this eugenic discrimination to continue.

“I understand the uncertainty and the fear when doctors give the long list of challenges and chances for heartache,” she said. “But Cole’s life couldn’t be further from what we were told. He brings my family an immense amount of joy and love.”

“My hope is that we learn and open our hearts to the science, to the research, and technology and come to reject abortion because it is inhumane,” Rodgers continued. “Open your ears to the cries of the unborn.”

The bill now heads to the U.S. Senate where its fate is less certain. Though Democrats also narrowly control the Senate, there appear to be enough votes to block the legislation. One Democrat, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, is pro-life, and U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a pro-abortion Republican from Maine, said the bill is too radical for even her and she will vote against it, Forbes reports.

Pro-life leaders promised to keep fighting to protect the rights of all Americans, born and unborn, and stop the bill from becoming law.

Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said the legislation would harm born Americans, too, by forcing healthcare workers to participate in the killing of unborn babies in abortions and force taxpayers to pay for their deaths.

“Pro-abortion Democrats have revealed their true vision for abortion policy in America by pushing the deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act,” she said. “If Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and their allies get their way, the United States will soon be indistinguishable from North Korea and China on the human rights issue of abortion.”

Students for Life Action President Kristan Hawkins slammed Democrat leaders as “bullies” for pushing such radical anti-woman and anti-child legislation.

“Making more abortion a top federal priority fails to help women advance and puts them at great risk of injury, infertility and even death,” Hawkins said. “Trying to pass a federal power grab over the state’s authority to protect preborn life reflects is a misuse of authority from the bullies who have moved from ‘choice’ to coercion when it comes to abortion.”

Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America, said many Democrat voters oppose the bill as well.

“We need to move this abortion debate back to reducing abortion, providing support to pregnant women, and at least maintaining health and safety regulations,” she wrote on Twitter. “There is bipartisan opposition to HR 3755. We need to move forward to protect and support women, not end preborn lives.”

Polls consistently show strong opposition to the measures in the bill, including taxpayer-funded abortions. A new AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 65 percent of Americans think most or all abortions should be illegal in the second-trimester and 80 percent think most or all should be illegal in the third trimester.

If passed, the bill would:

  • Eliminate all state and federal parental consent laws in relation to abortion
  • Eliminate all state informed consent laws, including those that allow women to view an ultrasound prior to abortion
  • Prevent states from passing laws to protect babies at 20 weeks, thereby joining countries like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands in not protecting unborn children later in development
  • Force doctors and nurses opposed to abortion to lose their jobs, and Catholic hospitals could lose public funds unless they perform abortions
  • Eliminate decades-long limitations on direct taxpayer funding of abortion – including the popular Hyde Amendment, which has saved over 2 million lives since enacted
  • In short, overturn all federal and state pro-life laws, and go further to make it illegal for elected officials to even introduce pro-life legislation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

AN INCREDIBLE ACT OF COURAGE BY MORE THAN 3,700 DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE SIGNED A PROTEST AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY MAKERS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO FORCE A “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” TREATMENT STRATEGY, RESULTING IN NEEDLESS ILLNESS AND DEATH OF THEIR PATIENTS IN THIS PANDEMIC

PHYSICIANS DECLARATION 
GLOBAL COVID SUMMIT – ROME, ITALY

International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists
September, 2021
(view in Italian) (view in Slovak) (view in Dutch) (view in Spanish)

[UPDATE: as of 11pm ET on 9/25 over 3,700 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration. Please join us by reading and signing below.]

We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;

WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;

WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;

WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;

WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;

WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;

WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease.  Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;

WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:

RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care. 

RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.

RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.

RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.

RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.

RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Declaration as of the date first written.

Sign the Declaration

“*” indicates required fieldsPrefix*Dr.Prof.MissMrs.MissMs.Mr.First Name*Last Name*Country*AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos IslandsColombiaComorosCongo, Democratic Republic of theCongo, Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicCôte d’IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEswatini (Swaziland)EthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly SeeHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussiaRwandaRéunionSaint BarthélemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth GeorgiaSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUS Minor Outlying IslandsUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweÅland IslandsSigning as a*PhysicianMedical or Public Health ScientistOrganization or Affiliation (may be self)*0 of 50 max charactersProfessional profile page or website, if available0 of 50 max charactersEmail*Consent* I agree to the privacy policy.Please read the statement before signing. By submitting this form, you agree that your submitted information will be stored and displayed on the website. The only publicly displayed personal information will be name, country, and organization/affiliation information (if included). All other transmitted personal data are protected and will not be passed on. Removal requests from the email used to sign will be completed within 30 days.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WOKE IS NOT NEW. CONSIDER IT AN OLD IED BURIED AND FORGOTTEN, BUT EVEN WHEN DORMANT AN ALWAYS LATENT EXPLOSIVE THAT ANY HEAVY TRAFFIC – THAT IS, THE YEAR 2020 – COULD FINALLY IGNITE


Reflections on 2020

the Worst Year in the Last Half-Century:

 Part One

Victor Davis Hanson

Eeyore’s Cabinet

September 21, 2021

Remembering When the Woke Awoke

Woke is not new. Consider it an old IED buried and forgotten, but even when dormant an always latent explosive that any heavy traffic—that is, 2020—could finally ignite.

Why? Decades-long devolution from citizenship to tribal ideologies explained why extremist groups found followers and felt no common ties with most other Americans, concerning either the nation’s past or future.

So, in the demonstrations, protests, rioting, and looting that followed the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the country experienced racial shocks and polarization not seen since the pre-Civil Rights era—and yet was not particularly surprised that they occurred.

Left unsaid was that the violence of 2020 was the logical dividend of years of racial separatism in the university, tribal chauvinism in popular culture, K-12 politicization of American history, and an affluent liberal elite who had virtue signaled and green lighted racial victimization as a mechanism to exempt from scrutiny their own unquestioned privilege.

At first, even before 2020 when Confederate generals of bronze and stone fell, the public stayed largely quiet.

Of course, the people did not like the mob’s vandalism and nocturnal iconoclasm. But on the other hand, they also did not quite see why the nation—even in the ex-Confederate states—had honored Stonewall Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forrest in the first place. True, some were brilliant generals, but almost all were diehard secessionists who had been unapologetic about the supposedly righteous cause of the rebellious slave-owning Confederacy.

Still, most on the sidelines stayed quiet and assumed that the mobs would be satiated with destroying century-old monuments to the old idols of the Confederacy, and then soon dissipate.

But the lack of arrests or even criticism of the vandalism only wetted the beak of the mob—as did those who wrote that they agreed with the aims of the mob, but not necessarily with their means. Within days, the iconic targets metamorphosized from Confederates to almost any white male heroic figure of the past, and without rhyme or reason: the author Miguel de Cervantes, Christopher Columbus, the Union General Ulysses S. Grant, Thomas Jefferson, Father Junipero Serra, George Washington, and a host of others including African American Civil War veterans and abolitionist Frederick Douglas. Even Mahatma Gandhi became a target, apparently given his early racialist writing while living in South Africa.

Within mere days, hundreds of monuments in major cities were toppled or defaced. And still demands grew from Black Lives Matter and Antifa to rename sports teams, towns, and change vocabulary itself. Laws were supposed to vanish without the input of the legislature. The police were to be defunded, even the concept of bail discarded.

Cancel culture, energized by social media, electrified by the Internet, and honed by the previous #MeToo frenzy, now began erasing out the careers of anyone in the past allegedly found guilty of a racist slur or insensitive act. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was outed, who decades earlier had worn blackface. A New York Times opinion editor, James Bennet, was forced out. His crime? He had allowed Sen. Thomas Cotton (R-AK) to write a guest editorial arguing that the President has a constitutional right and duty to send in federal troops to the worst areas of urban rioting.

Celebrities wrote nauseating public apologies confessing their racial sins to reclaim their livelihoods. Star New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees had initially opposed taking the knee during the National Anthem. But as a result, he was quickly faced with the destruction of his multimillion-dollar sports-celebrity-endorsement empire. So, he quickly pivoted and made the necessary adjustments:

In an attempt to talk about respect, unity, and solidarity centered around the American flag and the national anthem, I made comments that were insensitive and completely missed the mark on the issues we are facing right now as a country. They lacked awareness and any type of compassion or empathy. Instead, those words have become divisive and hurtful and have misled people into believing that somehow I am an enemy…”

When the combined ruthlessness and fear of the Salem Witch Trials, Joseph McCarthy’s inquisitions, and Maximilien Robespierre’s show trials now began to drive the protests, the results were predictable. Street names were changed, plazas rechristened. One day I drove into the Stanford University campus and noticed that the street beneath my office had now been renamed “Jane Stanford Way.” Gone was “Serra Mall”—named after the 18th-century founder of the California missions, Father Junipero Serra. Intrigued at the damnatio memoriae, I quickly checked and found that almost all of Stanford’s references to “Serra” were Trotskyzied. Had we all become collectively Orwell’s Winston Smiths, who nonchalantly noticed that certain incorrect names and events simply went into the memory hole?

I recalled my high-school English teacher Mrs. Hearne of more than 50 years past, who warned us at age 16 when we read 1984: “You’ll know 1984 not when the year comes up, but when they start changing names and dates.”

Throughout the nation barricades were put up across major thoroughfares. “Black Lives Matter” was emblazoned on main streets, often with either the help or approval of big-city mayors. Past state prohibitions about close contact and not wearing masks were utterly ignored. Tens of thousands hit the streets, oblivious to the current quarantines. They were exempted by timid mayors and governors, who had once issued supposedly iron-clad shutdowns. To square the circle of their impotence, officials now instead strangely went after small business owners who had followed suit and tried to restart their business.

Somehow race superseded even notions of public health in time of a pandemic—as over 1,200 health care professionals insisted: “We created the letter in response to emerging narratives that seemed to malign demonstrations as risky for the public health because of Covid-19. Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the pandemic response.” The advocates of science now reinvented a new science that postulated the ideology of the outdoor goer determined his susceptibility to the virus and danger to others.

Protestors bragged in empty fashion of far greater targets—the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, and indeed Mt. Rushmore itself. In their frenzy of revolution, the United States was declared cancerous at birth, and thus deserving of toxic surgery that well might kill the host. That the architects of the radical protests, the creators of Black Lives Matter, or the originator of the 1619 Project, or the Antifa protestors themselves were discovered to have uttered vile racist or anti-Semitic slurs in their own pasts mattered little.

Those calculating the effects on their own careers, either in fear of being outed to the Revolution, or in anticipation of gaining favor with it, began preempting the mob’s wrath, with the most bizarre array of virtue signaling seen in modern American history.

University presidents promised to capitalize black as “Black,” as if new orthography alone might ease tensions or postpone their own resignations. At a time of university financial crises, due to the lockdowns and forced closures of campuses, they promised huge budget increases for segregated theme houses, new diversity facilitators and coordinators, hiring new faculty members focused on the impact of race in America, accelerated and expanded mandatory diversity reeducation for faculty and staff, and increased African-American admissions—while damning both the systemic racism of their country and warning would-be counter-revolutionaries of the wages of dissent. Some English departments promised not to enforce traditional rules of English grammar in the grading of non-white student papers.

Retired generals who had spent their entire lives revolving in and out of Forts Benning and Bragg, suddenly announced they too had been suddenly woke to the prior insidious racist messaging of once naming U.S. military bases after Confederate renegade generals. Once unaware of their own supposed complicity in racism, they now opportunely asked that their century-old bases be renamed.

Corporate CEOs, fearful of boycotts and more looted stores, outdid each other in obsequiousness—none more than Dan Cathy, CEO of the Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant chain. He urged that white people shine the shoes of blacks in the manner that the disciples had washed the feet of Jesus. Indeed, Dan Cathy sort of did just that when in a televised moment he polished the sneakers of hip-hop artist Lecrae.

Take the knee”—a popular culture spin-off from HBO’s Game of Thrones in which the defeated either bowed on a knee or met their deaths—was now forced upon—or welcomed by? —police, coaches, and elected officials. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the respective top Democrats in the House and Senate, led a collective knee-taking in the Capitol, replete with African Kente cloth scarves around their necks. I wondered whether Ms. Speaker would wear such things when again showing off her $25,000 pair of refrigerators and $13 carton of designer ice cream or sneaking in once more to her hair salon to break her own advocacy of quarantines and masks.

State and local officials wondered whether the uprising would win majority voter support. For a while at least they decided to weigh in on the side of the protestors and demonstrators. In Seattle, the mayor allowed a center of the downtown to be governed by a BLM warlord. In Oregon, a state official ordered the required wearing of masks for all the public—with blacks excepted from the order, at least until outrage at the racialist pandering caused her to rescind the order.

In Seattle, mandatory racial reeducation was required of white public employees to force them to renounce further claims on their purported insidious privileges. In New York, Mayor Bill DeBlasio ordered a lockdown on all public gatherings except those organized by Black Lives Matter. It was as if the progressive Left had studied the insidiousness of Jim Crow and now sought to apply such protocols in reverse.

Sports franchise owners—themselves nearly all white, their teams overwhelmingly black—outbid each other to appear the most sympathetic to the popular furor. Some promised that players could wear BLM insignia.

Others swore that before the National Anthem was played, the so-called “black national anthem”—the early twentieth-century inspirational “Lift Every Voice and Sing” be played first. Ironically the song was written and set to music by James and Rosamond Johnson as a tribute to Abraham Lincoln (whose statues were currently being defaced). The song at its inception had served as a reminder of national redemption and victory (“our new day begun”). Unnoticed was that the song’s celebration of Christianity and optimism was oddly antithetical to the gloomy Marxism of the BLM founders.

The progressive establishment began worrying—a little bit—that the logic of the revolution they had supported and nourished was beginning to devour their own cherished icons and soon themselves as well. Losing Mt. Rushmore might be one thing but seeing the beloved Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University renamed opened a can of worms—among them most notably careerist concerns and social status branding.

Why not then the prestigious Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. as well? Indeed, if the standard was now the racism of the past hurtling into the present to justify destroying icons, how safe could the pillars of elite progressive higher education endure—Columbia, named for Columbus, Princeton for Prince William of Orange, Yale for a slave owner, Stanford for a railroad tycoon and exploiter of Asian labor?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Almost a decade after his death, Martini still won’t let go. The synod on synodality will be yet another battle to escape the hold of a dream that refuses to die. With a synod about the very weapon of the St. Gallen mafia—a synod apparently approving the German path to schism—this could be the end game: Martini’s dream come true.

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

The Weapon of the St. Gallen Mafia is Synodality

 Julia MeloniSeptember 20, 20210 Comments

  • 216Shares
  • 200

Cardinal Martini Lives on.

This is a story about the origins of the “synod on synodality.”

It is a story about dreams—and déjà vu.

All his life, Carlo Maria Martini (pictured above left) was a dreamer. In the Italian documentary Vedete, Sono Uno di Voi, we hear Martini’s conviction that only dreams make reality bearable.

As a boy, Martini’s dream had been to throw himself into studying the Holy Bible. He grew up to be a respected Biblical scholar—until Pope John Paul II plucked the shy Jesuit from his books to become the new Archbishop of Milan.

That’s when the other dream gripped him.

In 1981—says biographer Marco Garzonio—Martini “began to speak of a ‘synodal Church,’” categorizing this goal as a “dream.” According to Garzonio, this was a “dream” because “as a realistic person, as well as a prudent Jesuit, he had understood that his arguments did not constitute material welcome to the leadership.”

“He presented his ideas as a goal that was perhaps a long way away, but he was not silent,” says Garzonio.

This tension between dreams and reality gnawed at Martini—and by 1999, he could no longer wait.

For Martini—the bookish Biblical scholar—had a secret. Since the mid-1990s, he had been leading the St. Gallen mafia. It was a clandestine group of high-ranking churchmen opposed to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. These men favored decentralizing and revolutionizing the Church—and, it is said, they at first wanted Martini to be pope.

At the mafia’s January 1999 meeting (according to the authorized biography of member Godfried Danneels), Martini shared the latest permutation of his dream. He said he wanted a new council.

A new council. It was the deepest dream of a man who would one day tell Aldo Maria Valli that the time of Vatican II had been the greatest period of his life (Valli, Storia di un Uomo: Ritratto di Carlo Maria Martini).

Later that year, at a synod on Europe, Martini stood up and shared a version of this “dream.” Invoking Vatican II’s memory, he spoke of a future “collegial and authoritative consultation among all the bishops.” Then he listed the “key issues” to address collegially, from “sexuality” to the “deficit… of ordained ministers.”

“Though Martini never used the words ‘a new council,’ the Italian press wasted little time reporting his comments that way,” says vaticanista John Allen, Jr. “Others, however, say Martini was talking about a new instrument between a synod and a council.”

Yet according to Garzonio, there was an edge of “bitterness and disappointment” in Martini’s voice. For as the new millennium approached, his dream remained elusive, unrealized.

Time passed. Martini revealed he was ill with Parkinson’s and retired to Jerusalem in 2002; Ratzinger was elected as Pope Benedict XVI in 2005; the St. Gallen mafia allegedly broke up around 2006; Martini died in 2012.

That’s when the déjà vu began.

***

“When Cardinal Martini talked about focusing on the councils and synods he knew how long and difficult it would be to go in that direction. Gently, but firmly and tenaciously.”

It was October 2013, and a new pope, Francis, was telling journalist Eugenio Scalfari of his plans to copy Martini’s focus on “councils and synods.” Soon, Pope Francis announced a synod on the family—and tapped St. Gallen alumnus Cardinal Walter Kasper to deliver an agenda-setting address at a key consistory. The subject of Kasper’s crusade was Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, which Ratzinger had formally condemned through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994.

The eerie part was that in 2009 Martini had himself told Scalfari that his dream was to hold, first of all, a council on the divorced (Scalfari, Il Dio Unico e la Società Moderna, p. 21). The opening synodal maneuver of the Francis pontificate had been presaged, years in advance, by another Scalfari interview.

In 2015, vaticanista Sandro Magister began decoding Martini’s 1999 “dream” speech as a blueprint for the Francis pontificate. Spotting the uncanny symmetry between Martini’s old wish list and Francis’s synods, Magister accurately predicted that the next synod after the family synods would address the ordination of married men.

Meanwhile, in 2016, vaticanista Edward Pentin—author of a key book on the rigging of Pope Francis’s first synod—published a report highlighting concerns about synodality’s subversive potential. As Pentin put it:

[S]ome are concerned that [synodality] is essentially ‘protestantizing’ the Church, turning it into a quasi-democratic republic rather than a papal monarchy that safeguards and defends Church doctrine.

One Church observer, an expert in ecclesiology… believes synodality as it is currently being discussed has Trotzkyist connotations (‘permanent synodality’ being synonymous with ‘permanent revolution’).

The current emphasis on synodality partly derives from the aspirations of the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini who hoped for ‘a sort of permanent council of regents for the Church, beside the Pope.’ He was one of the first to propose the model of a ‘synodal’ Church in which the Pope no longer governs as an absolute monarch.

Which means that the upcoming “synod on synodality” isn’t just a self-referential bureaucratic exercise.

“Given the tensions and acrimony associated with recent synods, and especially the national ‘Synodal Path’ underway in Germany, which critics say could lead the country’s Church into schism, apprehension is growing about the disunifying effects of this kind of governance and its tendency to be used to introduce heterodoxy into the Church,” Pentin notes.

The official preparatory document of the synod on synodality does little to soothe these fears. Mentioning some version of the terms “synod,” “synodal,” or “synodality” over sixty-five times, the document seems fixated on the very concept that Martini wanted to weaponize. The accompanying Vademecum text, notably, alludes to the controversial “synodal journey” in Germany. But it does not condemn this potentially schismatic energy; rather, it urges the country to “creatively articulate the synodal processes already underway.”

When the preparatory document, meanwhile, goes on to suggest “remaining open to the surprises that the Spirit will certainly prepare for us,” the déjà vu is undeniable: in Night Conversations,Martini had already talked of being “open to the surprises of the Holy Spirit.”

Because, almost a decade after his death, Martini still won’t let go. The synod on synodality will be yet another battle to escape the hold of a dream that refuses to die. With a synod about the very weapon of the St. Gallen mafia—a synod apparently approving the German path to schism—this could be the end game: Martini’s dream come true.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Julia Meloni

Julia Meloni is the author of The St. Gallen Mafia (TAN, 2021). She writes from the Pacific Northwest. She holds a bachelor’s degree in English from Yale and a master’s degree in English from Harvard.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Almost a decade after his death, Martini still won’t let go. The synod on synodality will be yet another battle to escape the hold of a dream that refuses to die. With a synod about the very weapon of the St. Gallen mafia—a synod apparently approving the German path to schism—this could be the end game: Martini’s dream come true.

A godfather is the one who has a spiritual relationship of begetting with a godchild, or a movement. Garrigou-Lagrange articulated the essence of the Trad movement some 20 years before the movement began to take shape.

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

The Godfather of the Trad Movement is the Greatest Thomist of the 20th Century

 Timothy FlandersSeptember 24, 2021

Trads have been vilified as “schismatic” and “rigid” for decades. Some of us are used to this, and some are weary of it—beaten down and abused by our spiritual fathers and our Catholic brethren. But we should take comfort in the fact that they have also called another man rigid, old, “closed” and, Ratzinger’s favorite insult: neo-scholastic.[1] This man is the godfather of the Trad movement, and happens, by all accounts, to be the greatest Thomist theologian of the twentieth century: Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP.

Why is Garrigou-Lagrange the godfather of the Trad movement? He died in 1964 before the Council was even closed.https://3b030e79bd1da99ad97500f86e9fb580.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Well, a godfather is the one who has a spiritual relationship of begetting with a godchild, or a movement. Garrigou-Lagrange articulated the essence of the Trad movement some 20 years before the movement began to take shape.

In 1946, he correctly identified that some thinkers within the Nouvelle théologie were neo-Modernist. In this sense he has a relationship of spiritual fatherhood to an entire movement that would not arise in force until the Coetus at the Council, but we will return to that in a minute. Because of this Dominican’s critical insight, he can correctly be called a prophet. He predicted the whole post-Vatican II crisis decades before it happened. 

Why did Garrigou-Lagrange see this for what it was so early? Because he was there at the beginning of the first Modernist crisis under Pius X. He taught for fifty years in Rome. Back in the beginning of his carreer as a professor, he wrote the book Le sens commun (Thomistic Common Sense in translation) against the first Modernists condemned by Pius X. Thus he could recognize the exact same errors among some of the Nouvelle théologie decades later, namely, the false evolution of dogma, condemned already at Vatican I with this anathema:

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. (Vatican I, Dei Filius)[2]

Garrigou-Lagrange saw the same Modernism again reborn in the writings of Fr. Henri Boulliard and others in the 1940s. Against this he penned the essay “Where is the New Theology [French: Nouvelle théologie] taking us?” His answer was simple: back to Modernism. This godfather of the Trad movement could say “We’ve been down this road before,” especially because he himself was old enough to remember the old Modernism and had written against it decades previously!

This is why John Vennari of happy memory, editor of Catholic Family News, translated this essay from Garrigou-Lagrange and published it in his newspaper in August, 1998. Vennari also published a “Short Catechism of the New Theology” showing the concerns that Garrigou-Lagrange had raised back in 1946 were now at large in the 1990s.

This has been the effort of the Trad movement, to defend orthodox faith and morals against the neo-Modernist excess present among some Nouvelle théologie thinkers, and promoted by means of Vatican II. And this was the argument made prophetically by the greatest Thomist theologian back in 1946.

So instead of making a straw man from the Trad movement, critics have to face this man, a pious and critical theologian who schooled the young Karol Wojtyła (John Paul II) in his doctoral thesis, was widely popular and respected in his own time, and had this prophetic insight decades before these things occurred. The Coetus Internationlis Patrum led by Archbishop Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer continually made the same warnings at Vatican II: an excess like this will lead to Modernism. But wrapped in a Teilhardian naivete, many churchmen ignored these warnings, just as they dismissed the Third Secret of Fatima and its dire predictions. The rest is history as we all know.

As I discussed on the podcast, it is for this reason that at OnePeterFive, we intend to distill and promote Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s teachings as a means to Unite the Clans. This is a holy man who can truly make disciples out of Trads. He is our spiritual father whose writings hold a key not only to anti-Modernism, but even more to the spiritual life, orthodox doctrine, and true Thomism (as opposed to false Thomism, but that’s another story).

For this effort, we’ve brought in one of the best scholars on Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange working today: Dr. Matthew Minerd, professor of Philosophy and Moral theology at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of St. Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh. Dr. Minerd has translated numerous texts of Garrigou-Lagrange and is going to write a series of articles for OnePeterFive which will distill and explain the thought of this godfather of the Trad movement for readers.

With God’s help, we hope this will help Trads not only see the foundation of our movement and unite the clans, but also help us in what is most important: the spiritual life. With permission from Baronius Press, we are also going to be publishing excerpts from one of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s greatest works, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, which is a two volume treatise on mystical and ascetical theology, absolutely critical for our time.

So the next time a critic vilifies you as “schismatic” or “rigid,” calmly and charitably explain to him that “The Trad critique about the present crisis was explained by the greatest Thomist theologian of the twentieth century in 1946” and then send him the article.

But to afford great writers like Dr. Minerd, we need your supportPlease donate to cause of rebuilding Christendom and restoring Catholic culture.

To introduce you to Dr. Minerd as well as the master, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, see the following interview I did with him a few weeks ago reposted to the OnePeterFive podcast. As always, please contact me with any questions, comments or requests:

T. S. Flanders
Editor
Our Lady of Ransom https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Rc1agHG6Fc?feature=oembed

[1] To be fair to Ratzinger, the German neo-scholasticism of his day under Schmaus seems to have been indeed rather rigid (in a bad way) and seems to have not acted like St. Thomas in critically understanding other ideas and developing steel man objections. This may have been the type of neo-scholasticism that Dawson says was ideological and which compares to Marxism (Birzer, Sanctifying the World, 68). Ratzinger also admitted that he was a little too “forthright” with Schmaus, but nevertheless seems to disparage neo-scholasticism as a whole instead of just its excesses (Ratzinger, Milestones, 103-115).

[2] This false evolution of dogma (defined and anathematized here) is distinguished from the orthodox development of doctrine, articulated by St. John Henry Newman.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Timothy Flanders

Timothy Flanders is the editor of OnePeterFive. He is the author of City of God versus City of Man: The Battles of the Church from Antiquity to the Present, which is forthcoming, and Introduction to the Holy Bible for Traditional Catholics. His writings have appeared at OnePeterFive and Crisis, as well as in Catholic Family News. In 2019 he founded The Meaning of Catholic, a lay apostolate dedicated to uniting Catholics against the enemies of Holy Church. He holds a degree in classical languages from Grand Valley State University and has done graduate work with the Catholic University of Ukraine. He lives in the Midwest with his wife and four children.meaningofcatholic.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A TEXAN TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WHIP AND A HORSE’S REIN

Courage Begets CourageMore With Melissa Mackenzie NewsletterPublisher, The American SpectatorWant to be heard? Email MackenzieM@Spectator.org.
Hello again!
Writing the title inspired me to go look at the Cars music video of the song Hello Again. I’m not sure if I ever saw the video (no MTV, my parents rightly understood that it polluted the youth so I snuck it at the house of the kids I babysat). In the video, who do I see? Why, a young Gina Gershon and, it turns out, Andy Warhol directed the psychedelic and sex-infused video. The crazy in that video is mainstream now even though it’s still crazy.
Being normal is the new crazy.
I’m sorry it’s been a bit since writing. Between getting a magazine together, planning the gala and a myriad other things, getting to this has been challenging.
I received a rather straight forward email this week from Philip G. who said this, “Please send your newsletter.”
I figured I better get the lead out and get writing.
In the three weeks since the last missive, it’s like the world has changed itself again and not for the better.
Angelo Codevilla died. It’s an utter heartbreak. Some writers and thinkers just have lightning quick minds and the authority of thunder when they write. He was one such man. He predicted the times we’re in on the pages of our very own The American Spectator when he wrote America’s Ruling Class. I recommend that you read it and weep for the loss of Mr. Codevilla and for America.
Bearing False Witness
There’s a difference between lying and bearing false witness. Lying can be innocent and lubricate the social joints or perhaps be a kindness or a time saver. For example, one may say to the cashier when he asks, “How is your day going, ma’am?”, “Fine” or “Going great!” Neither might be true but does one really want to give a dissertation on how this day well and truly stinks and life is miserable in this moment and this is why, etc.? No. So it’s a little lie to keep the earth rotating on its axis.
Then there are big lies. Most of us know about these, too, and they’re terrible lies. “No, I didn’t cheat.” Or, “no, I’m not drinking again.” Or, “no, I didn’t remortgage the house so I could gamble it all in Vegas.” Those are big and terrible lies that have destructive, life- altering consequences for all involved.
But the 10 Commandments does not even mention those kind of lies (those sins are address as adultery, stealing, coveting, etc). No. The commandment is this, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Bearing false witness is an abject evil. Bearing false witness is knowing the truth and specifically lying to harm someone else’s life. 
This week, a reporter named Sawyer Hackett, then the media, and then Jen Psaki and today, the President, bore false witness against a horseback riding border agent who was corralling an illegal immigrant back into Mexico. Hackett expressed horror that the horseback rider used a whip against the illegal immigrant. I took one look at the picture and said that it was what it obviously was – a rein. It wasn’t even in the agent’s hands. It was flying around. 
Hackett either through ignorance or malice bore false witness. Perhaps he didn’t know, but lots of people, immediately, corrected him. He didn’t remove his tweet, though, and it spread like wildfire. It was too perfect. It took the focus off the evil of over 15,000 immigrants from South American countries baking in the Southwestern summer sun for days and willing to do so to get free access to America and her many goodies. It changed the narrative of Biden’s border failure to a lie: racism.
Rather than defend a decent man doing his job, Jen Psaki and the Biden administration saw the perfect story to throw people off the manmade disaster of their creation. And so they bear false witness against this border agent, agents generally (no more horse rider agents!) and away from their own failures. 
This is evil. Malevolent. It’s bearing false witness.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A TEXAN TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WHIP AND A HORSE’S REIN

Ron DeSantis, ONE; Joe Biden, ZERO


Joe Biden picked a fight with Ron DeSantis he thought he could win – he was sorely mistaken

September 23, 2021

If you thought Biden couldn’t hate anyone more than Donald Trump, you were wrong.

Ron DeSantis has become Biden’s newest enemy number one.

And Joe Biden picked a fight with Ron DeSantis he thought he could win, but he was dead wrong.https://lockerdome.com/lad/13678839645549670?pubid=ld-1716-3522&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

Joe Biden’s Presidency is going up in flames and he’s trying to save it.

By issuing new COVID orders and trying to push through massive spending packages, Biden is attempting to save face, but it isn’t working.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis became a household name after resisting mask and vaccine mandates.

The world has watched as DeSantis has led Florida fearlessly and laughed in the face of Joe Biden.https://lockerdome.com/lad/13678841155499110?pubid=ld-8976-4742&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

DeSantis made masks and vaccines optional in Florida and promoted monoclonal antibody treatments.

According to reports, the plan is paying off as fewer and fewer Floridians are being hospitalized.

DeSantis’ victory has infuriated Joe Biden.https://lockerdome.com/lad/14230595806901350?pubid=ld-7945-558&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

Biden can’t stand that DeSantis is pushing back against the tyrannical mandates the White House keeps handing down.

So, Biden decided he needed to punish DeSantis and to do so he is playing with the lives of thousands of Americans.

Biden cut the shipments of lifesaving monoclonal antibody treatments to Florida and six other Republican-led states.https://lockerdome.com/lad/14230597383959654?pubid=ld-667-5472&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

Not surprisingly DeSantis is fighting back.

The very idea that the President of the United States would play with people’s lives as a political maneuver is sickening.

But leave it to Ron DeSantis to find a way around Biden’s most recent power play.

Governor Ron DeSantis announced recently that he will purchase the antibody treatment directly from manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline.

“What I am doing though, is we’re going to try to cover the bases. I had a call yesterday with GlaxoSmithKline executives about their new monoclonal antibody . . . Sotrovimab was given EUA, I believe in May. So the Eli Lily one, which is kind of now coming back, but the Regeneron, that was at the end of 2020. Sotrovimab was given EUA in May. The clinical data on that was even better than the clinical data on the Regeneron, 85% reduction in hospitalizations,” DeSantis told reporters.

Of course, the White House tried to play off the despicable move by Biden and Jen Psaki told reporters the claims weren’t accurate.

Psaki is lying and was called out for it repeatedly on social media.

Joe Biden’s cognitive abilities are rapidly declining and the more pushback he gets from Republicans the angry and more dictatorial he becomes.

This is just year one. 

It’s scary to think what Biden might pull next.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ron DeSantis, ONE; Joe Biden, ZERO