In its decision today in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court addressed two Arizona election measures: (1) its policy of not counting votes cast in the wrong precinct; and (2) and its law, HB 2023, allowing only postal workers, election officials, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to collect and deliver an early ballot on the voter’s behalf. Dividing 6 to 3 along ideological lines, the Court held that neither measure violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Alito wrote the forceful majority opinion. Justice Kagan wrote a fiery dissent.
In this post, I’ll summarize Alito’s majority opinion. (I’m quoting heavily but will not litter the summaries with lots of quotation marks and ellipses.)
In a follow-up, I’ll address Kagan’s dissent. I’ll simply note here that I’m surprised that the Court wasn’t unanimous in reversing the Ninth Circuit, even if under different approaches. Even the Biden DOJ informed the Court that “it does not disagree with the conclusion in [the Trump administration’s] brief that neither Arizona measure violates Section 2’s results test.”
Alito majority:
1. This case presents the first opportunity for the Court to consider how section 2 applies to generally applicable time, place, or manner voting rules. We decline to announce a test to govern all such rules and instead “identify certain guideposts that lead us to our decision.”
Section 2 provides that it is violated “if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Thus, equal openness is the touchstone, and the totality of circumstances must be considered. We derive these considerations from this statutory command:
a. The size of the burden imposed by a challenged voting rule is highly relevant. Every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort.
b. The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when section 2 was amended in 1982 is a relevant consideration.
c. The size of any disparities in a rule’s impact on members of different racial or ethnic groups is an important factor to consider.
d. Courts must consider the opportunities provided by a state’s entire system of voting when assessing the burden imposed by a challenged provision.
e. The strength of the state interests served by a challenged voting rule must be taken into account. One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is also a valid and important state interest.
2. Kagan’s dissent “would rewrite the text of section 2 and make it turn almost entirely on just one circumstance—disparate impact. That is a radical project.” Congress rejected the “freewheeling disparate-impact regime the dissent wants to impose on the States.” “According to the dissent, an interest served by a voting rule, no matter how compelling, cannot support the rule unless a State can prove to the satisfaction of the courts that this interest could not be served by any other means. Such a requirement has no footing in the text of §2 or our precedent construing it.” And it “would have the potential to invalidate just about any voting rule a State adopts.” Under Kagan’s approach, “any ‘statistically significant’ disparity—wherever that is in the statute—may be enough to take down even facially neutral voting rules with long pedigrees that reasonably pursue important state interests.”
3. In light of these principles, the Arizona measures do not violate section 2.
a. Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the usual burdens of voting. The District Court’s uncontested findings show that the State made extensive efforts to reduce their impact on the number of valid votes ultimately cast.
Even if it is marginally harder for Arizona voters than for voters in other states to find their assigned polling places, Arizona offers other easy ways to vote. Any voter can ask to be placed on the permanent early voter list so that an early ballot will be mailed automatically. Voters may drop off their early ballots at any polling place, even one to which they are not assigned. And for nearly a month before election day, any voter can vote in person at an early voting location in his or her county.
The racial disparity in burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-precinct policy is small in absolute terms. A policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies—minority and non-minority alike—is unlikely to render a system unequally open.
Precinct-based voting furthers important state interests: It helps to distribute voters more evenly among polling places and thus reduces wait times. It can put polling places closer to voter residences than would a more centralized voting-center model. In addition, precinct-based voting helps to ensure that each voter receives a ballot that lists only the candidates and public questions on which he or she can vote, and this orderly administration tends to decrease voter confusion and increase voter confidence in elections. And the policy of not counting out-of-precinct ballots is widespread.
b. HB 2023 also passes muster. Arizonans who receive early ballots can submit them by going to a mailbox, a post office, an early ballot drop box, or an authorized election official’s office within the 27-day early voting period. They can also drop off their ballots at any polling place or voting center on election day, and in order to do so, they can skip the line of voters waiting to vote in person. Voters can also ask a statutorily authorized proxy—a family member, a household member, or a caregiver—to mail a ballot or drop it off at any time within 27 days of an election.
The plaintiffs were unable to provide statistical evidence showing that HB 2023 had a disparate impact on minority voters. Even if the plaintiffs had shown a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s justifications would suffice to avoid §2 liability. Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence. That was the view of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. HB 2023 tracks that Commission’s recommendation and is in fact even more permissive.
Prevention of fraud is not the only legitimate interest served by restrictions on ballot collection. Third-party ballot collection can lead to pressure and intimidation.
1. There is a lot of rousing rhetoric in Kagan’s opening and conclusion—all with respect to two common measures that even the Biden administration couldn’t bring itself to argue were unlawful.
2. Kagan contends that Alito “fears that the statute Congress wrote is too ‘radical.’” But what Alito in fact argues is that Kagan’s “rewrit[ing]” of section 2 is a “radical project.” It’s cheap of her to fool her readers into thinking that Alito applied the term “radical” to the Voting Rights Act.
3. Kagan writes: “Yet efforts to suppress the minority vote continue. No one would know this from reading the majority opinion.” But Alito explicitly states:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extirpated or that the threat has been eliminated.
Moving beyond what Alito labels Kagan’s extended effort at misdirection, I’ll briefly summarize the heart of her argument (joined in full by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor).
Kagan argues that Section 2’s text requires courts to eradicate voting practices that make it harder for members of some races than of others to cast a vote, unless such a practice is necessary to support a strong state interest. (Pp. 12-20.) She contends that the considerations that Alito draws from the text are instead “mostly made-up factors, at odds with Section 2 itself.” (Pp. 20-29.)
Kagan argues that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy “results in Hispanic and African American voters’ ballots being thrown out at a statistically higher rate than those of whites” and that “Arizona is the national outlier in dealing with out-of-precinct votes, with the next-worst offender nowhere in sight.” (Pp. 29-35.) Similarly, “Arizona’s law mostly banning third-party ballot collection also results in a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities” for rural Native American voters. (Pp. 35-40.)
The Supreme Court on Thursday further reined in the impact of the Voting Rights Act, taking a narrow view of when state voting practices can be ruled to violate the rights of minorities.
The court’s majority opinion, from Justice Samuel Alito, does not offer a bright-line test for future cases. However, he stressed that rules posing only a modest burden on voters would not usually amount to a violation of the act.
“Every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort. Voting takes time and, for almost everyone, some travel, even if only to a nearby mailbox. Casting a vote, whether by following the directions for using a voting machine or completing a paper ballot, requires compliance with certain rules,” Alito wrote.
Alito also stressed that not every disparity in impact on minority voters would run afoul of the law.
“The mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. The size of any disparity matters,” he wrote. “What are at bottom very small differences should not be artificially magnified.”
All the court’s liberals dissented, joining an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan that portrayed Thursday’s ruling as part of a profound and ongoing curtailment of the landmark 1965 voting rights law by the high court.
“What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses,” Kagan wrote. “What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.'”
Kagan pointedly accuses the conservative justices of betraying a principle they claim to hold dear: that statutes should be unfailingly interpreted according to the text Congress enacted.
“The majority fears that the statute Congress wrote is too ‘radical’ — that it will invalidate too many state voting laws,” Kagan writes. “So the majority writes its own set of rules, limiting Section 2 from multiple directions.”
Language added to the Voting Rights Act in 1982 prohibits states or localities from employing any election practice which “results” in the infringement of voting rights “on account of race.”
Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and many other faith communities, have all sorts of internal strictures governing modesty provisions (especially for women), sexual practices, and dietary rules that others may find disagreeable. But the media rarely say a word about them. Nor should they—it’s none of their business. However, their reticence does not apply to Catholics. In its July 1 editorial, the Houston Chronicle lectures the bishops about matters that they should leave alone. Not to be misunderstood, when the Catholic Church takes a public policy stand on any issue, it is fair game for criticism. But when it comes to internal matters, such as the sacraments, it is no more the business of a newspaper than it would be the business of the bishops to opine on the hiring practices of a newspaper. The editorial tells the bishops they are wrong to even consider denying President Biden Holy Communion. “Biden, who attends Mass and says he personally opposes abortion,” the editorial says, “has nevertheless throughout his political career supported the legal right for women to decide for themselves to have one.” If a Catholic president attended Mass and was personally opposed to racial discrimination, but nonetheless felt it was good public policy to support it, would the Houston Chronicle consider that acceptable? Of course not. The difference is that the paper is opposed to racial discrimination but not abortion. The Catholic Church opposes both. The paper is factually wrong to say that Biden has been a champion of abortion rights “throughout his political career.” In 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, Biden said the ruling went “too far” and that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.” In 1976, Biden voted for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of abortions. In 1981, he introduced the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving abortion. In 1982, he voted for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words, in the decade following Roe, he had a mostly pro-life record. In 1983, however, he reversed himself and voted against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe. That was the beginning of his pro-abortion stance. After telling the bishops they are wrong to consider denying Biden the Eucharist, the editorial then contradicts itself when it admits that “what the bishops decide about who may take part in sacraments is their decision. If lay Catholics don’t like it, they can leave the church or press the bishops to reconsider.” Well said. Why, then, did it violate these precepts in the remarks that preceded this concession? Even more baffling, why did the newspaper then pivot and start lecturing the bishops again? It immediately said that “we’d like to remind the bishops of the words of Pope Francis.” Next, they opine that if the bishops are going “to begin excluding politicians from communion on the basis of just one of those morale crusades,” it is guilty of “cherry-picking.” What happened to the dictum that “what the bishops decide about who may take part in sacraments is their business”? The editorial is a mess, from top to bottom. Contact Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: Raj.Mankad@chron.com
Why are the Catholic Experts like Edward Peters & LifeSiteNews Afraid to Debate Dr. Mazza, Barnhardt & Br. Bugnolo on “the Fact is that Munus and Ministerium Do Not Mean the Same Thing”?
On Tuesday, the great Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (Fr.Z) summarized some important points made by Catholic scholar Dr. Ed Mazza and Ann Barnhardt on the Pope Benedict XVI resignation:
Let’s play the mind exercise out a little more and hack through some of the issues which I have heard raised by, for example, Ann Barnhardt, who is without question of the mind that Benedict is still Pope and Francis is a usurper antipope. Along with Ann is a smart fellow with well-articulated arguments, Edward Mazza.
I’ll try to spin out what they have been discussing. I hope I don’t put my foot wrong and mischaracterize their positions. I’m happy to be corrected.
It seems that… in their view…
Benedict did NOT legitimately resign, because the language he used at the time he announced his resignation is confused. The confused language suggests that Benedict intended to resign the activedimension of his role, his ministerium (for example, doing stuff as Bishop of Rome and doing stuff as Pope to the larger world). However, he did not intend to resign his munus as Vicar of Christ. Much turns on the technical term munus.
The fact is that munus and ministerium do not mean the same thing, though they are often bound together. For example, one carries out a certain ministry in the Church because he holds an office, a munus. Canon law says that the Pope has to resign the munus.
Canon 332 §2: Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur. … If it should come to pass that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and that it be properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerioEpiscopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.… For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable. They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms. Not even close.
It is interesting to read the Canon that introduces the figure of the Roman Pontiff, the Pope:
Can. 331 — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet. … The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom persists the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. [https://wdtprs.com/2021/06/the-question-of-two-popes-bothers-a-lot-of-people-some-thoughts/]
Fr. Z’s post reminded me of a piece I wrote last year that asked “Why are Edward Peters and LifeSiteNews afraid of a real debate with [Latin language expert] Br. Bugnolo?”:
Below is an exchange between a frequent Catholic blog commenter who apparently claims to be a priest Fr. VF and a commenter with the tag Amateur Brain Surgeon (who is supposed to have a blog) in the Catholic Monitor comment section on lack of citation of canon law in defending ones position on if Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid or not:
Fr. VF said in response to a Amateur Brain Surgeon comment:
“I read ABS, and I see lots of name-calling. I see gratuitous assertions, but no citations from any text. And I see a great, big Straw Man. Namely, the Barnhardtists DO NOT claim to read anybody’s mind. They quote the WORDS of the instrument of resignation. Again, something ABS never quotes or analyzes.”
“Dear Father VF. ABS notes you cited no Canon having to do with the legitimacy of occult claims.”
“Bullets Barnhardt is not an expert in Canon Lawyer. She has no education in Canon Law. She has no degree in Canon Law. She has no experience in Canon Law.”
“You believe her claims about Canon Law.”
“Barnhardt claims she does know the intent of the former Pope and has an absurd post (Thermonuclear something or other) claiming that what Ratzinger wrote about the beliefs of others is what he personally held as his own beliefs even though what she quoted was the word of Ratzinger about the ideas and beliefs of others.”
“How can one know Ratzinger was writing about the ideas and beliefs of others and not his own ideas and beliefs ?”
“Well because he quoted the words of them and named them and then he footnoted them by name but Bullets claims their ideas and beliefs are his ideas and beliefs.”
“That is not the way to grow The Occult Cult.”
“Here is the assessment of the resignation by one who has a Doctorate in Canon Law.”
Unfortunately, Amateur Brain Surgeon fails to cite what Edward Peters in those posts and any other posts actually says. Since he apparently knows Peters so well maybe he will cite what he says about Canon 17 which is the part of the thesis Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo uses citing canon law from the original Latin text showing in overwhelming detail why ministerium and munus are not to be used interchangeably.
I would love for Amateur Brain Surgeon, Peters, LifeSiteNews, Steve Skojec, Chris Ferrara or anyone to actually argue citing canon law instead of name-calling or throwing out straw-men arguments.
Amateur Brain Surgeon is apparently using what LifeSiteNews’ anonymous theologian is saying on intent which as Br. Bugnolo shows if one follows what even Peters says about Canon 17 means ministerium and munus must be used according to how canon law objectively defines them as and not by supposed subjective intentions.
Mr. Amateur Brain Surgeon if you know Peters, please get him to debate Br. Bugnolo. But, I won’t hold my breath. It appears Peters and LifeSiteNews are afraid of real debate.
Why are Amateur Brain Surgeon, Peters and LifeSiteNews afraid of a real debate on Canon 17 which “requires that ministerium and munus [must] be understood as referring to two different things”?
The rest of this post is a rehash of a past post which overviews LifeSiteNews’ position, a quote of Peters on Canon 17 and Br. Bugnolo’s thesis showing why the LifeSiteNews anonymous theologian is wrong.
On December 6, 2019, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac in the comment section claimed that the news site had “indeed reported” on “a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on… [in which] faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41”:
Islam_Is_IslamPatty • a day ago @Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don’t want to ‘fess up to their mistake. Steve Jalsevac ModIslam_Is_Islam • a day ago Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role. [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]
Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why “in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium,” but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the “Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)” and not in referring to the all important canon 17.
Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17’s importance:
“Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.” (Catholic World Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)
On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the “abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.’”
But, the “theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity” never mentioned canon 17:
But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.”
But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added. Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities. “One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”
The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is ‘not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.”
He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.
The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”
But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.” “In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”
Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:
“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.” (From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to “investigate or report on” that “Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”?
LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?
If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo’s scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you’re not afraid:
Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.
However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.
For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.
First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect. Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.
For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.
This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.
This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus…. The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2. It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.
For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law. I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.
This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.
According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.
Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law
This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com. In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms. For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found: Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium. Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code. Let us take a look at each, briefly. Ministeria:
The Nominative and Accusative Plural: Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233, 237, 385, 611 and 1035. Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc.. Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times. In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548. These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:
In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519: The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop. And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2. Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1. Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta. 2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1 Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept. 2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.Ministeriis The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1. Excommunicatus vetatur: 1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis; 2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere; 3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English is:Canon 1331 §1. An excommunicate is forbidden:
from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.Ministerio The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.Ministeriorum The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.And finally the Nominative Singular form.MINISTERIUM Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code. First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384 Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.
Munus in the Code of Canon Law
Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1.An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1. Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1. The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!Note well, ministerium is not included in that list! thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus. thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.——(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want 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)
– 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.
Joe Biden seems to have a particular bias for persons who apparently promote a new kind of eugenics. Breitbart reported that “Joe Biden’s BLM Nominee Pushed Population Control, Defined American Children as ‘Environmental Hazard’”:
Tracy Stone-Manning, President Joe Biden’s nominee to be director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), described American children as an “environmental hazard” while advocating for slowing U.S. population growth in her 1992 graduate thesis.
The Daily Caller reported on Stone-Manning’s thesis, titled “Into the Heart of the Beast| A case for environmental advertising,” after which she was awarded a master of science degree in environmental studies. Her thesis, however, amounted to public policy recommendations for the University of Montana described as “environmental education.”
Stone-Manning called for an advertising campaign to lessen procreation among Americans, ostensibly towards “environmental” ends. She produced a sample poster deriding a shirtless child as an “environmental hazard.”
Her political advertisement asked in its header, “Can you spot the environmental hazard in this photo?” It included the following response:
BlabberBuzz also reported extremist Stone-Manning was “connect[ed] to eco-terroris[m]”:
Stone-Manning was slammed over claims that she tricked senators about her connections to the eco-terrorist plot. She has also faced scrutiny for promoting population control to protect the environment in her graduate thesis.
“Given the Biden Administration’s supposed concern for domestic terrorism, this nomination is particularly puzzling and worrisome,” the letter reads. “Tree-spiking is a form of ecoterrorism, considered by the FBI at one point as one of its highest domestic terrorism priorities.”[https://www.blabber.buzz/blab/pop/1028172-manchin-takes-on-biden-alone-once-again?utm_source=c-alrt&utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-AOL&utm_content=445hiIGUs4ebZpsxV5xzhBGM.A]
Moreover, Biden and Stone-Manning are promoters of the Climate Change or Global Warming ideology. The Washington Times revealed that Climate Change has a “eugenics precedent”:
“Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world’s thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the “science” of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.
Believers in eugenics argued that we could improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The most respected scientists from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other bastions of intellectual rigor retreated to a complex on Long Island named Cold Spring Harbor. Their support came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman fortune working with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, State and other agencies.
The “science” was not lacking important public supporters. Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were enthusiastic believers. The theory won approval of Supreme Court justices, leaders in higher education and Nobel Prize winners. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the most vocal adherents. She established the first “birth control” clinic in 1916.
They believed that “the best” human beings were not having as many children as inferior ones — the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit and the “feeble minded.” Sanger said “fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.” H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Roosevelt said, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind…
… One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.”[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/feb/18/20070218-100445-1207r/]
Does Biden agree with extremist Stone-Manning that “shirtless child [are] an ‘environmental hazard’” and that “we could improve the [earth] by controlling reproduction”?
Moreover, the Jerusalem Post reported that Biden tapped another apparent eugenicist for his inner circle in its November article “Biden taps Ezekiel Emanuel to coronavirus task force, faces controversy”:
Concerns were raised that Emanuel doesn’t value saving those over the age of 75, with some equating his views to eugenics.
President-elect Joe Biden has tapped renowned oncologist and bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to sit on his coronavirus task force, despite his controversial views on aging, The Forward has reported.
Does Biden agree with extremist Emanuel that the age of 75 “renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death”?
Finally, is it possible that Biden and Francis might in some way support a one-world eugenicist government agenda?
It appears that Joe Biden and the Globalist Elite are possibly beginning the process for a one-world abortionist eugenicist government (probably modeled on Marxist China program) as Constitutional attorney Robert Barnes reports:Robert Barnes@barnes_lawA global tax system is the predicate to a global governmental system.CNN Breaking News@cnnbrk
Leaders from the G7 nations agree to establish a 15% global minimum tax, backing the Biden administration’s plan to overhaul the global tax system[https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1402314544613969925 and https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1401150844595277829%5D
Might Francis be in on this process?
Is there Evidence that Francis wants a one-world government?
“… Schellnhuber is also known for his advocacy of a one-world government. In order to avoid his catastrophic predictions for unchecked climate change.”
Francis is in alliance with the United Nations, the Club of Rome and Schellnhuber in calling for a one-world government.
On May 9, the New American reported on the “unholy alliance” between the one-world regime globalists and Francis:
Francis said “‘When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,’ his holiness told those gathered to discuss ‘Nation, State, and Nation-State,’ the conference theme.”
“Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by ‘an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.'”
“… Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for ‘international organizations’ to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the ‘state interests’ with the will of the United Nations, he stated.”
“… Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.”
“That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.”
Also, apparently in alliance with Francis and the Club of Rome is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in their attempt to bring about a abortionist eugenicist one-world government:
“Ocasio-Cortez is the leading champion of the Green New Deal, in collaboration with a Rockefeller-funded left-wing astroturf advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement [SM]… “”The Green New Deal is exploiting the popularity of social democratic ideals as sugar coating to disguise the globalists’ poison pill. According to reporting by Inside Philanthropy, institutional funders made up about 55 percent of Sunrise Movement’s 2018 budget, which includes donors like the Rockefeller Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and the Winslow Foundation. The Wallace Global Fund was originally founded by former US Vice-President Henry A. Wallace. Winslow is run by Wren Winslow Wirth, who is married to former politician Tim Wirth.[3]SM was launched in April 2017 by six principal co-founders—veterans of the Occupy Movement—who had developed a friendship with Michael Dorsey of the Rockefeller-funded globalist institution, the Club Of Rome; Dorsey was also a former Sierra Club board member, whom President Barack Obama had appointed to the EPA’s National Advisory Board in 2010 and 2012.”[http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/green-astroturf-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-agent-globalist-conspiracy]
Who is Dorsey who is apparently one of AOC’s major players behind the scenes pulling strings with his Rockefeller connections which are funding Ocasio-Cortez?
It appears that Ocasio-Cortez is a fellow traveler with the abortionist eugenicist one-world agenda of the Club of Rome who promote “birth control and the killing of pre-born children”: “‘Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,’ Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. ‘And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”[https://www.dailywire.com/news/43880/ocasio-cortez-people-maybe-shouldnt-reproduce-due-ryan-saavedra]
By coincidence it appears that Ocasio-Cortez’s former Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti is a fan of a ally of Hitler:
“Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:”
“Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.”
“Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.”
Also, by coincidence Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Chakrabarti happen to be pro-choice like the one time wannabe one-world government abortionist eugenicist leader Adolf Hitler.
As the German Media covered up Hitler’s many eugenic scandals, the Nazi Media proudly promoted the pro-choice Hitler.
Pro-choice Hitler’s next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenicswhich lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]
Author and visiting lecturer at the University of Illinois Allen Chase wrote that the Francis Vatican hosted Ehrlich was:
“[A]n open and blunt advocate of genocide political policies… Dr. Ehrlich has neither the intellectual right and professional right… to speak for biology in particular and for the scientific community in general. Genocide remains genocide, whether advocated in a Munich beer hall in the 1920 or in a Texas college auditorium in 1967.” (Counterpunch, “Population Bomb or Bomb the Population?,” April 3, 2019)
The New Atlantis showed the racist implications of Ehrlich’s policies:
“In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, ‘I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self sufficient in food by 1971, if ever’… By 1972-1973, the number of sterilizations in India reached three million per year.” (The New Atlantis, “The Population Control Holocaust,” By Robert Zubrin, Number 35, Spring 2012, pp. 33-54)
When most people think of eugenics and forced sterilization they think of Nazi Germany, but tragically Francis’s Vatican is hosting and promoting the foremost one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders of those same policies such as Ehrlich.
The Francis and the Club of Rome agenda for a one-world regime is also Ehrlich’s goal according to Fox News:
“President Obama’s ‘science czar,’ John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, ‘compulsory sterilization,’ and the creation of a ‘Planetary Regime.'”
“… [Holdren propounded this ‘Planetary Regime’ policies in a] textbook he co-authored in 1977, ‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,’ a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com”
“The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. (Fox News, “Obama’s ‘Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions,” Published July 21, 2009, Last Update January 27, 2015)
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want 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)
– 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.
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
Introduction:I have decided to both clarify and explain what is actually meant by Critical Theory and closely related terms like Marxism and put it all into perspective, and in the proper context so the average person can grasp that with which they are faced and threatened in the society in which we live today, but is steadily getting worse. For this purpose, I have chosen a recent work by George Friedman, from his Geopolitical Futures organization, or, as I would express its content, Where are we going, and why? Caveat: This is my opinion as to what Mr. Friedman is saying, and it may or may not be completely valid. He says in his opening statements that his reason for going to graduate school was to learn all he could about political philosophy and, in particular, the very strange way political terms like “communism” and “marxism” are used in the same context, but fail to connect in their everyday usage. Here he mentions that Hegel and Nietzsche, both German philosophers of the 18th century, have contributed to the doctrine of Communism/Marxism. I have taken the liberty of adding to it Charles Darwin. The advent of atheism allowed men to become gods, at least in their own minds if not in actuality. So “justice” and “the value of life” take on a brand new meaning. “What about justice”; where does that come into play? Ostensibly both of the two political systems try to help the worker and the poor underprivileged who are oppressed by the ones who own the new technology or means of production, and while those means are constantly in a state of flux or technology adaptation, the worker is always poor. Communism and Karl Marx remained the subject of intellectual endeavor, and practical applications of either one, but neither one ever seemed to work satisfactorily. According to Mr. Friedman, the big change occurred in the 1930s when “The Frankfurt School” created “Marxism” as we have it today. It is an entirely new approach because it forces the capitalist who owns the means of production (the source of wealth) to include the worker in the distribution of the wealth. As you well know, Karl Marx himself wanted to make an end to capitalism because the workers never received proper remuneration for their part in making other people rich. But, there was a big problem associated with doing it! For one, it was typical of unhappy workers to riot and revolt. Another was that a revolution might satisfy some small private interest, but no permanent good or improvement was ever obtained. Then Marx and Engels had a revelation: the workers had no conception of what it was they really wanted that would elevate them to a permanent status of wealth and independence and an authentic lifestyle, (e.g., they might not be comfortable in a higher class of living that required a good education, good IQ, good work ethic, etc.). Critical Theory tries to get over these limitations by inserting Marxism into capitalist countries, with designs on developing a new way of thinking for the owners of the means of production. The first thing that is done is to establish an authentic lifestyle for the subjects to be elevated to, and not try to force-fit them into an artificial suburban one. This attempt to create an authentic liféstyle for the elevation of the working class is helped along by inserting these subjects into high-level jobs in the industrial sector so they will be an active participant in the pseudo-capitalist economy. This is done regardless of personal and intellectual limitations! This new standard of living would be fueled by creating something peculiar, called “consumerism”! “We will let other people build for us, and produce goods and services, and we will spend and spend and spend.” The “revolution” was on, and everyone who was in it was instantly satisfied. They had money to spend and an infinite supply of goods and services from which to choose. The real economic difference was in the fact that what used to be made in America was now made in some foreign country for a fraction of the cost of making it by an evil capitalist. The strength of the economy would be based on consumption and not on production. The other big change in the “revolution” factor is that the horror of a revolt of the proletariat has been largely avoided. But, terror must be maintained to keep them in constant fear and in a state of strict compliance, so a pandemic, or a nightmare of illegal aliens, or climate changes, or inflation, or any other thing that someone can invent will be tried. Despite the apparent changes for the good, the fact still remains that Marxism and Critical Theory will inevitably fail because it is built on the lie that the man who works on the airplane while it is on the ground can, at any time, assume command of the airplane and fly it across the Rocky Mountains. It is also true that if you consume everything today what will you eat tomorrow? When capitalism fails so does everything else in the world.
To double-cross or not to double-cross. That is this evening’s question. I’ve already written about it once, but it’s a major moment. An hour after allegedly making a bipartisan infrastructure deal with ten senators, including five Republicans, Mr. Biden then walked away and threatened not to sign it. That is, the President took the podium by himself (always tricky business with Mr. Biden) and basically said if he doesn’t get his $4 trillion Green New Deal, high-taxed, entitlement state — through a 51 vote reconciliation — he’s not going to sign the infrastructure deal. He said “but if only one comes to me, I’m not. This is only when it comes to me. I’m not signing it. It’s in tandem.” In other words, he would insist on linkage. He never really used the word veto, but linkage was clear. Now, despite what some prominent Republicans said on television yesterday, I don’t think Uncle Joe Biden has walked anything back. He can walk back a veto because he never explicitly used the word “veto.” No matter how much White House aides have tried to re-spin this, though (and I’ve been there, done that), I’m arguing nothing has changed. My Senate Republican friends had best wise-up to that. On Friday, after Mr. Biden’s supposed walk-back, Madam Psaki said that Mr. Biden expected these initiatives would move forward on a dual-track. That’s “Psaki 1” Friday night. Additionally, we’ll call it “Psaki 1-a,” Mr. Biden’s press secretary said, the President will leave it to leaders in Congress to determine the timeline and the sequencing. Reporter: Is he going to wait for both of them to land on his desk before signing the bipartisan package, waiting for the reconciliation package to come through? Ms. Psaki: He fully expects, hopes, plans to sign both into law, and he will leave it to leaders in Congress to determine the timeline and the sequencing. Today, Madam Psaki — call her “Psaki 2” — said the President intends to sign both pieces of legislation into law. “As you know, they are both moving forward in dual tracks… The leaders in Congress are ensuring that is happening.” So I don’t see much difference between “Psaki 1,” “Psaki 1-a,” and “Psaki 2.” The keyword here is dual tracks, as in you want a bipartisan infrastructure bill? I want the American family plan.Both. In addition, on one of the Sunday talk shows, Mr. Biden’s senior adviser, Cedric Richmond, when asked if the President would sign an infrastructure bill on its own without reconciliation, Mr. Richmond said, “I don’t think it’s a yes-or-no answer.” Then there was this:Jake Tapper: “If it happens, if the bipart infrastructure bill lands on his desk on its own, if that were to happen, he would sign it? Yes or no?” Mr. Richmond: “I don’t think it’s a yes-or-no question. We expect to have both bills in front of us to sign. And I expect that President Biden will sign the infrastructure bill, he will sign the families plan.” Now, here’s one technical point. In regard to President Biden’s original package of roughly $6 trillion in additional spending and up to $4 trillion in additional taxes, just to review the bidding, the first leg was the $2 trillion covid relief plan. That, we now know — given the booming economy and the rise of inflation — should’ve been a non-starter. Most of the country now believes the federal plus-up in overly generous unemployment benefits was a detriment to the economy. The second part of the Biden package, roughly estimated at $2.3 trillion dollars included a small piece called infrastructure and a very, very, large piece to implement the Green New Deal and to raise taxes across the board to finance it. Prominent in this tranche was hiking the corporate income tax, which now includes the Group of Seven global minimum tax as part of the Biden-Yellen tax surrender and also a domestic minimum tax. The third piece of the Biden pre-Berlin wall coming down, Bulgarian Green Worker’s Paradise utopia consisting mainly of a wave of new entitlements and other income transfers to be made permanent. They would be financed by a series of brutal income tax increases and a doubling of the capital gains tax and a whopping increase in the inheritance tax by eliminating the step-up basis for capital gains at death. So you have a $1.9 trillion Covid plunge, a $2.3 trillion American worker plan, and $1.8 trillion American family scheme coming to a tidy $6 trillion and something like $4 trillion in tax hikes. Which will throw a wet blanket over the Trump boom we’re experiencing and yield massive lower tax revenues as a consequence of higher tax rates, per the Laffer Curve. Stuck in there someplace is this $80 billion for more IRS agents, which is supposed to generate $700 billion from tax cheats like Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and other liberal tax cheats. I feel their pain. So, at this point, I’m still in the camp that believes Uncle Joe double-crossed the GOP. It was bait and switch. All we’re hearing are blue smoking mirrors from not-so-clever White House aides who are frantically attempting to hide the truth. What’s the truth? President Biden is still held hostage by the ultra-left, progressive wish list of Senator Bernie Sanders, House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the “Squad.” If Republicans keep their wits about them, they can whoop this. Because the country is not behind it.
“Sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.” – Bishop Robert Lynch (above), who as a young priest served as the first Executive Director of the American bishops’ National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.
By: Randy Engel
[NOTE: This is the final installment in the series. For Parts 1-4, click HERE ]
McHugh’s Legacy Lives On & Unborn Children Continue to Die
Bishop James T. McHugh was called to his Maker some twenty years ago on December 10, 2000, but his deadly legacy lives on in the current three-tiered USCCB-Washington D.C.-based “pro-life” bureaucracy composed of (1)The Committee on Pro-Life Activities (2) The “Secretariat” for Pro-Life Activities and 3) The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. State Catholic Conferences and an army of Diocesan Pro-Life Directors make up the rest of the prolife bureaucratic contingent at the lower levels of the USCCB.
As previously noted in this series, when the American bishops reorganized and expanded their prolife offices at the NCCB/USCC in the late fall of 1972, Msgr. McHugh became the Secretary and Executive Director of the Ad Hoc Committee for Pro-Life Affairs (1972-1978), that later became a formal Standing Committee of the NCCB – the USCCB Committee for [on, of] Pro-Life Activities.
The hackneyed Respect Life Program held every October for the last 45 years and the hair brain scam of People of Life Action Campaign of the Catholic Church in the United States[1] are two of the Committee’s expensive signature programs.
The current chair of the Committee is the Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City, KS. Archbishop Naumann is also a Board member of the NCHLA.[2]
While the USCCB Pro-Life Committee was theoretically controlled by a cardinal chair and a large number of bishops, in practice, the routine work and development of new prolife programs and strategies were handled almost exclusively by the staff of the new USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities,[3] originally headed by Msgr. McHugh.
For several decades after McHugh left for Rome in 1978 to obtain advanced theological degrees, the Secretariat has been operated by his permanent bureaucratic clones including his personal family friend and former secretary, Gail P. Quinn, a 39-year veteran of the USCCB; Michael Taylor, who helped McHugh set up the original National Right to Life Committee at the USCC in the 1970s and later went on to head the NCHLA; and McHugh’s long-time gofer, Richard Doerflinger, who served as Associate Deputy Director of the Secretariat for 36 years until he retired in August 2016.
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment[4]
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, Inc. was created by the Catholic bishops of the United States in January 1974 for the singular purpose of securing at the earliest possible moment a Constitutional amendment protecting the life of unborn children.
The action followed the annual November 1973 Washington, D.C. meeting of the NCCB/USCC in response to pro-life critics who charged the American bishops with “failure to provide leadership in the pro-life area.”[5] At that time, the Catholic hierarchy, using funds ultimately gleaned from faithful pewsitters, made an allocation of a half-million dollars to cover the initial expenses of the NCHLA.
Thus it was that the NCHLA joined the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities and its Pro-Life Secretariat as the Catholic Church’s third “prolife” bureaucracy.
At the time of its creation, Msgr. McHugh was serving as both the Secretary and Executive Director of the NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities and the USCC Family Life Director, and had full control of both, but eventually the Family Life Office formally withdrew from active participation and debate on a human life amendment.
Nevertheless, McHugh, continued to exert his influence on the NCHLA through two of his closest allies, Board member Valerie Vance Dillon, and his decades-old friend, the Camden Diocese attorney Martin F. McKernan, who still continues to serve as NCHLA’s Secretary and Treasurer.
On the advice of the NCHLA legal counsel, in order to achieve a tax-exempt status under Sec. 501 (c) (4) of the IRS Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the new corporate entity was registered as a foreign corporation doing business in the District of Columbia.[6]
The NCHLA is a corporate entity. It is not a membership group. It has never been a grassroots organization. Its only constituency is the individual bishop donors who tap diocesan funds supplied by, once again, faithful pewsitters. Although technically a separate and corporate entity apart from the Bishops’ Committee and Secretariat, the NCHLA always was and always will be a creature of the American bishops and the USCCB. Currently, Committee Chair Archbishop Naumann sits on its Board of Directors along with other Committee Bishops and Consultants including Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay and Bishop Felipe J. Estévez of St. Augustine.
The first organizational meeting of its Board of Directors was held on February 14, 1974. The projected life of the new corporation, as a registered lobbyist, was estimated to be two and one-half years. In November 1976, the bishops were to evaluate the progress of the NCHLA and decide whether or not to keep the organization operative, but it is unlikely the evaluation ever took place.
Forty-six years and more than $23 million later, the NCHLA is still with us, but alas, there is nary a Constitutional Human Life Amendment in sight at their corporate office, nor at the USCCB, and there hasn’t been for decades.
First NCHLA Executive Director a Homosexual
The first President of the Board of Directors and Executive Director of the American bishops’ new bureaucracy, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, was a 33-year-old Catholic homosexual with a late “vocation” named Robert N. Lynch, later aka Rev. Robert N. Lynch, Associate General Secretary (1984-1989) and General Secretary (1989-1995) of the NCCB/USCC, and aka Bishop Robert N. Lynch, the fourth Bishop of Saint Petersburg, Florida, today, Bishop Emeritus.[7]
It appears that under homosexual Bishop, later Cardinal, Joseph Bernardin, the first General Secretary of the NCCB/USCC, putting homosexual priests in charge of prolife activities had become kind of sick inside joke – a way of thumbing their noses at naïve anti-abortionists.[8]
Among the founding purposes of the NCHLA was (1) to serve as a unifying force among all prolife organizations; (2) to initiate an intensive clergy education program to insure that “the priests form the front line in the effort to secure a human life amendment.”[9] and (3) to form a uniform basis for state units of prolife groups.
None of these purposes were ever realized.
According to Lynch, the NCHLA, “in effect, became the spokesman for the nation’s Catholic bishops on the human life amendment issue.”[10] But what he did with the initial half-million bucks of Catholic laity’s money remains a mystery. As the record shows, there was not a single significant legislative contribution made towards the advancement of a Constitutional Human Life Amendment during Lynch’s administration, nor those that followed him four decades into the future.
To be more specific, under the watch of the NCHLA, the American bishops’ campaign for a Constitutional Human Life Amendment has all but disappeared from the halls of the NCHLA and the USCCB national legislative “prolife” agenda.
Even so, as late as 2019, the NCHLA 990 IRS form for 2018 stated that the organization’s mission remains “the dissemination of information in order to secure the enactment of a human life amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
As it stands, this is a blatantly fraudulent statement.
Exactly when the American bishops or/and the NCCB/USCC or its heir, the USCCB, reached the secret corporate decision to abandon their support for a Constitutional Human Life Amendment, and switch gears to support various forms of incremental prolife legislation,[11] has never been made public. My educated guess would be sometime in the late 80s.
But not to worry.
The NCHLA has managed to stay the course for over 40 years without interruption, and without achieving anything coming even remotely close to a Constitutional Amendment to protect unborn children in America – its allegedly singular solitary mission.
In similar fashion, its executive directors have continued to hitch their wagon to the USCCB financial gravy train with hefty annual salaries plus perks that have climbed to well over $100,000:
Executive Director Michael Taylor[12] who headed the NCHLA from 1989-2015 has earned an estimated one to two million dollars plus of episcopal largesse over a 26-year period.
Executive Director Amy McInerny[13] (2016-2017) earned $134,039 in FY 2016 and $116,745 in FY 2017.
And current Director Brian Duggan’s annual salary and perks have climbed near or past the $100,000 mark.[14]
Recent annual revenues for the operation of the NCHLA is in the $500,000 range with the bulk of the funds going to salaries, benefits, pension plans, office expenses and information technology:
2013 – $561,415 with a deficit of $72,873.
2014 [not available at this time]
2015 – $502,622 with a deficit of $45,820.
2016 – $457,365 with a deficit of $68,143.
2017 – $421,577 with a deficit of $6,049.
2018 – $423,951 with a balance of $26, 889.
NCHLA’s EndRoe.org and Human Life Action
The above NCHLA special projects are examples of two of the corporation’s recent unsuccessful, and expensive boondoggles.
EndRoe.org is a website created by the NCHLA in 2005, in cooperation with the Pro-Life Secretariat, to help Catholic parishes, dioceses, state Catholic Conferences, and Catholic lay grassroots groups “in advancing the prolife message.”[15] In 2011, additional funds were allocated to fund the “beta” relaunch of EndRoe.org and develop a new web site “designed primarily for the education of the non-legal audience.” The project was conducted in collaboration with legal experts.
In the words of the NCHLA, “The purpose of EndRoe.org is to promote a fuller understanding of what the Court did in Roe and Doe and why these fundamentally erroneous decisions must be corrected.”[16]
Pardon me, but are Catholics to believe that over the period of 32 years, between the time of the infamous Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (1973) and the creation of the NCHLA’s EndRoe.org (2005 and 2011), that Catholic laymen and clergy are still in the dark as to the implications of the decision that legalized abortion up to – and a little past – birth, and the remedy – a Constitutional Human Life Amendment which embraces all unborn children including the human embryo at the earlies stages of his or her development?
In the end, EndRoe.org project was abandoned due to lack of funds and the absence of NCHLA personnel to carry on the project.
In 2015, following the retirement of NCHLA careerist Mike Taylor, another new project called HumanLifeAction.org was initiated under the leadership of Executive Director Amy McInerny, a former employee of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities and Research Assistant for the NCHLA.
The stated public relations campaign themes of HumanLifeAction.org are “EDUCATE, ENGAGE, EVERYONE.” Very clever. But isn’t education on prolife activities and prolife legislation the job of the Secretariat for Prolife Activities which has its own staff and budget at the USCCB? Why the duplication of efforts?
But again, at the risk of sounding redundant, where in all this public relations verbiage is there any concrete reference to the NCHLA’s alleged sole mission in life – the securing of a Constitutional Human Life Amendment to protect all unborn children?[17]
“REFLECTION, REFORM and REPARATION”
For decades now, the Catholic laity have been paying through the nose for the large legal staff of the NCCB/USCC and the USCCB. Is it too much to expect that the American bishops demand that their well paid legal staff at the USCCB come up with a model Constitutional Human Life Amendment that would pass real Catholic muster – even if that meant getting a whole new legal team of prolife Constitutional lawyers to replace their Saul Alinsky-dedicated lawyers, which would likely be the case?
When is enough, enough?
How long will the bureaucrats at the USCCB – with the permission of the American bishops – continue to exploit aborted unborn children for their own financial and political gain?
Isn’t it time for the Catholic hierarchy to “DRAIN THE USCCB SWAMP” and reclaim their prolife funding from the USCCB coffers and redirect their monies to worthy local and national prolife groups and initiatives that include lobbying for and securing a Constitutional Human Life Amendment that will protect all unborn children? Although disbanding the non-canonical USCCB would be the ideal remedy, reducing its inflated budget would make a good start.
The McHugh anti-life legacy has brought death to millions of our nation’s unborn children. It’s time for the American bishops to end that deadly legacy now and make a fresh start by individually and corporately publicly dedicating their ecclesiastical administration to the securing of a Constitutional Human Life Amendment – a promise they made to the Catholic faithful in 1974 with the ill-fated creation of the NCHLA, and never kept.
As the final installment of this series goes to press, the fate of the Prolife Movement is unknown as the political realities of the day begin to settle in. Readers who wish to be kept informed of the ongoing efforts prolife efforts of the U.S. Coalition for Life, especially with regard to the Constitutional Human Life Amendment, can send their email address to the USCL at randy.engel@uscl.info.
NATIONAL PROLIFE ARCHIVE PROJECT
In the meantime, the one thing that all Catholics, including readers of akaCatholic.com, can do is to support the National Prolife Archive Project designed to preserve the history of the Anti-Abortion/Prolife Movement. This project is being conducted by the International Catholic Media Association of Chicago and is headed by long-time prolifers, Barry Smith, President, and Brian Polacek, head of digital media production.
In the summer of 2019, I was privileged to give Barry and Brian a five-hour interview on the history of the U.S. Coalition for Life. This series is based on that lengthy interview. In addition, I have turned over hundreds of priceless, one-of-a-kind documents to be archived in the Prolife Historical Museum which will house the vast prolife reference library and podcast media center. The anticipated location of the Museum and Archives is Washington, D.C. Many other early prolife leaders around the country have been interviewed for the project including some of the founding members of the March for Life.
You can make a tax-deductible donation to the National Prolife Archive Project and Prolife Historical Museum by visiting the International Catholic Media Association website at ICMA – International CatholicMedia Association. Checks and money-orders can be sent to the ICMA, attn. Barry Smith, 2323 Westcourse Drive, Riverwoods, ILL 60015. The ICMA phone number is 847-414-3422. Memorial gifts in the name of deceased prolifers, including family members, are most welcome.
It would be wonderful if, as a first step in their Reparation program, the American bishops would give their full support to the National Prolife Archive Project. It seems to me, the least they can do is to honor all the unsung prolife heroes of the past. And most certainly, it is the least that we prolifers who are still alive can do to honor our dead.
The End
[1] People of Life – The Pro-Life Action Campaign of the Catholic Church located at the USCCB Office in Washington DC at 3211 Fourth Street, solicits tax-deductible contribution from Catholics under the guise of brining “an end to abortion and euthanasia.” The pewsitter’s donation goes into the coffers of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat. See https://www.usccb.org/committees/pro-life-activities/people-life.
[2] The current members of the Pro-Life Committee are: Chair, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, KS; and Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City; Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore; Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland; Most Reverend Jacob Angadiath, Bishop of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago;
Most Reverend James D. Conley, Bishop of Lincoln; Most Reverend Felipe J. Estévez, Bishop of St. Augustine;
Most Reverend Shelton J. Fabre, Bishop of Houma-Thibodaux; and Most Reverend James V. Johnston, Jr. Bishop of Kansas City-Saint Joseph.
Bishops’ Consultants: Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston; Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York; Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley, OFM Cap, Archbishop of Boston; Most Reverend Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville; Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, Archbishop of Miami; Most Reverend Brendan J. Cahill, Bishop of Victoria in Texas; Most Reverend Martin D. Holley ,Bishop Emeritus of Memphis; Most Reverend Steven J. Lopes, Bishop of the Chair of Saint Peter; Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix; Most Reverend David L. Ricken, Bishop of Green Bay; Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, Bishop of El Paso; Most Reverend William J. Waltersheid, Auxiliary Bishop of Pittsburgh; Bishop Joseph L. Coffey, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese for the Military Services;
Lay, Clerical and Religious Consultants: Helen Alvaré, Esq., Law Professor, George Mason University School of Law;
Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight, Knights of Columbus; John F. Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L., Director of Institutional Relations, National Catholic Bioethics Center; Colleen Carroll Campbell; Luisa de Poo, Associate Director of Pro-Life Activites, Diocese of Austin; Mother Agnes Mary Donovan, S.V., Superior General, Sisters of Life; Joseph Meaney, Ph.D., President, National Catholic Bioethics Center; Ronald Johnson, Jr., Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference; Patrick E. Kelly, Deputy Supreme Knight, Knights of Columbus; Elizabeth Kirk; Fr. J. Daniel Mindling Academic Dean, Mount St. Mary’s Seminary; Kathleen Raviele, MD, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Consultant to the President, Catholic Medical Association. See https://www.usccb.org/prolife/commitee-members-consultants-and-staff for a handy printout sheet of members and staff.
Tom Grenchik, Executive Director Greg Schleppenbach, Associate Director Mary McClusky, Assistant Director for Project Rachel Ministry Development Anne McGuire, Assistant Director for Education and Outreach Katherine Talalas, Assistant Director for Pro-Life Communications Kimberly Baker, Programs and Projects Coordinator Teresa Mutchler, Executive Assistant Christopher McCaffery, Program Associate for External Communications Denisha LaFleur, Program Associate for Internal Communications.
[4] Robert N. Lynch, “The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, Inc.: Its Goals and Origins,” The Catholic Lawyer, Vol. 20, No. 4, Autumn 1974, pp. 303-308.
[7] Born on May 27, 1941, Bishop Lynch attended the Pontifical College Josephinum in Ohio, at the time a hotbed of sodomy, and the Pope John XXIII National Seminary in Massachusetts. He was ordained on May 13, 1978 for the Archdiocese of Miami, and after serving for 11 years at the NCCB/USCC was appointed Bishop of Saint Petersburg in 1995. In 2002, Lynch was exposed as a predatory homosexual in the Urbanski scandal that cost the diocese over $100,000 in secret diocesan payments. Lynch is currently prevented from engaging in any liturgical activities in at least two dioceses due to his continuing homosexual advances toward young men. For further information see The Rite of Sodomy, Vol. IV. pp.777-796, available at www.newengelpublishing.com.
[8] For a study of the NCCB/USCC role in the advancement of homosexuality under Bishop Bernardin see The Rite of Sodomy, Vol. III, pp. 549-614.
[11] Legislation related to federal conscience protection laws (2011, 2012); religious liberty (2013, ongoing); Planned Parenthood defunding (2011).
[12] Michael Taylor spent most of his adult life, some 46 years, at the NCCB/USCC/USCCB. He was the National Right to Life’s first executive Director under Msgr. McHugh, and helped develop the NCHLA under Robert Lynch. From 1975 to 1979 he served as Associate Director of the Pro-Life Secretariat where he assisted in the production of the annual Respect Life Program. He took over the NCHLA when Lynch became the General Secretary of the NCCB/USCC in 1989 and retired in 2015 when he received the “People of Life” award at a private dinner sponsored by the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.
[13] Amy McInerny, a law graduate of the Catholic University of America in 1991, was hired that same year as the Assistant Director of the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. She was employed by the NCHLA as a research assistant for less than a year in 2014-2015. In March 2015 she was hired as the Executive Director of the NCHLA : Human Life Action ,a post she held from 2015 to 2017.
[14] While the Board of the NCHLA sets the salary of the Executive Director at the time of hire, the President, determines subsequent raises which are based on USCCB guidelines.
Here are some random thoughts that continue to pop into my head on this cloudy, dreary, and rainy day in South Florida: 1. I’m curious, has anyone heard from John Durham yet? Has he finished his investigation into the 2016 Russiagate election fiasco in which democrats were caught red-handed spying on a Presidential candidate then a President-elect then President of the United States….and lying about it? 2. Anyone heard anything about the Hunter Biden investigation or the content contained on his laptop which the FBI has had since before the 2020 election? 3. If you are thinking of finishing your basement, maybe you ought to put it off a bit. Have you checked out the cost of a sheet of ¾ inch plywood recently? Would you believe over $100! So, lumber is skyrocketing in price as is the cost of new construction and, of course, steel prices are through the roof. So what makes President Biden and his democratic acolytes think that our country can afford an infrastructure bill now. 4. I believe the very essence of Critical Race Theory is racist on its face. There is a straightforward way to determine if CRT is racist. Remove the word white out of every sentence and replace it with the word black. Sounds racist, doesn’t it? Pretty compelling don’t you think? Perhaps General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ought to reflect on this along with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and rescind their orders to have every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine be exposed to this asinine, stupid, demoralizing, and divisive concept. 5. I’m trying to figure out why VP Kamala Harris went to El Paso, Texas which is about 1,000 miles from the Rio Grande area on our southern border where the massive influx of illegals are coming across into the U.S. What the hell did she think such a visit would accomplish? She spoke with no farmers, no border agents, no immigrants, and was exposed to none of the challenges faced by border security. Perhaps she decided to suddenly make the trip because President Trump announced he would be visiting next week? 6. Have you noticed the crime wave that continues unabated throughout the nation? Murders, robberies, assaults, rapes all are up significantly from pre-pandemic levels, yet all we hear from democrats is the same old refrain that all of this crime is related to easy access to guns! Here is a news flash for President Biden…criminals don’t give sour owl shit about gun laws and regulations because they don’t buy guns in gun stores! And here is another news scoop…if you defund police departments as New York City did, you will get more crime! If you institute ridiculous rules like cashless bail and arrest and release, criminals will commit more crimes! If District Attorneys refuse to prosecute crimes or criminals, you will get more crime! Is this so difficult to understand? 7. I am all for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reading the works of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara, Castro, Pol-Pot and anyone else he feels will help him understand potential adversaries and how they think. But, forcing Critical Race Theory down the throats of our enlisted men and women is a Bridge too Faras Cornelius Ryan so eloquently wrote about Operation Market Garden in WWII. Such a posture would only serve to weaken not strengthen our military and the General knows this. The last thing our fighting men and women need to be thinking about is race. It has no place in achieving and maintaining unit cohesiveness. 8. If you think that Gwen Berry the young black female hammer-throw athlete turning her back in protest while our National Anthem was being played is an isolated exception, think again. I believe we will be seeing more and more so-called activist athletes competing for their five minutes of fame at the Tokyo Olympics this summer. And for good reason. We allow it to happen. The more the media focuses attention on these imbecilic, self-serving gestures and attempts to explain them away with old clichés like “its’s their right to express themselves and their opinion”, the more they will occur. Here is a news flash: showing disrespect for the Flag of our Nation and the Uniform which bears our name USA and flag is disgraceful and should be met with immediate repudiation, dismissal from the team, forfeiture of any medals earned, and a ticket home. And, if the Commissioners of the NFL, MLB, and the NBA each grew a pair, they would lay down the law and institute a rule that addresses such protests and exhibits as a flagrant violation of the player’s personal service contractswith grounds for dismissal and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. If players feel strongly about their need to protest, leave the U.S. and go and compete for another country because they sure as hell don’t appreciate the one that provided them with the opportunity for recognition and fan adulation as well as making millions while playing a sport! 9. When will Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, release the infamous Hunter Biden laptop? A better question is: Why aren’t Republicans demanding this? 10. Listening to Attorney General, Merrick Garland, I now know why Mitch McConnell refused to bring his name to the floor for a vote as a Supreme Court Justice. AG Garland is a poster boy for the Left and Joe Biden’s lackey. What a putz. 11. Maybe it’s just me, but I sure get the strong sense that President Biden is not in control but is rather doing the bidding of Barack Hussein Obama, the Great Divider in Chief a/k/a DIC himself, Michelle Obama, and Valerie Jarrett. 12. It is now almost six months since Joe Biden took the oath as President of the United States, swearing to “preserve protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Yet, since that day, I cannot think of one policy, one executive order, one regulation enacted by President Biden that was beneficial to America and Americans. Not one. Indeed, I can make the argument that virtually all of his actions have served to weaken, not strengthen our nation, and harm not help its citizens. What do you think? 13. Don’t you find it fascinating how Dr. Anthony Fauci has seemingly vanished as a media darling these days? Funny how that happens when the news mounts that the Chinese Virus a/k/a Covid-19 is now believed to have been the result of a “leak” from the Wuhan China Institute of Virology (intentional or unintentional is yet to be determined). Curious also is the mounting evidence that the National Institutes of Health here in the U.S. had been funding research into Coronavirus at the Wuhan Laboratory. Why would America be spending U.S. taxpayers’ money to fund this research in China? 14. I’m wondering why the Biden Administration is so hell-bent on getting back into the Iran Nuclear Deal and willing to back off sanctions that will allow Iran access to hundreds of billions in financing? Are we that naïve to believe Iran, the single largest state sponsor of terror in the world will suddenly amend its ways and join the community of nations? Have we learned nothing from history? And what about our staunch Middle East Ally, Israel, a nation Iran wants to destroy by any means possible? The Abraham Accords have ushered in a welcome era of peace between Israel and the Arab States, none of whom are comfortable with Iran. Biden’s overtures to Iran make little sense but, then again, much of what has transpired since this feeble old man has taken office does. 15. I cannot for the life of me understand why news organizations give so much time and exposure to people like Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib. They spew such ignorance, rarely make any sense, and offer nothing constructive to America. More than that, they lack even a basic understanding of American capitalism and history, and are not at all grounded in economics.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.