Above, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, 60, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana in Khazakhstan in central Asia, formerly one of the republics making up the Soviet Union. (link to his own website).     Schneider is one of the more tradition-minded members of the Church’s episcopate, known for championing the pre-Vatican II liturgical traditions and practices of the Church. (link and link).    Born to a family of German origin in Kyrgyzstan, then part of the Soviet Union, Schneider experienced the Soviet persecution of the Church as a child. He was able to leave the East bloc at age 12, completing his education in West Germany. Thus, his intellectual biography has two strands: “Soviet” and “German.”     Schneider has just given an interview in Austria to American film-maker James Henry (a descendant of Patrick Henry, the American colonial patriot known for declaring “Give me liberty, or give me death”), as part of a series of interviews under the general title of “Planet Lockdown” (link)    Letter #36, Sunday, June 20, 2021: Bishop Schneider on the Current Crisis        Athanasius Schneider was born on April 7, 1961, in Tokmok, Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), in the Soviet Union. His parents were Black Sea Germans from Odessa in Ukraine.    After the Second World War (1939-1945), they were all sent by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to a gulag in Krasnokamsk in the Ural Mountains, where the family was closely involved with the underground Church. Schneider’s mother Maria was one of several women to shelter the Blessed Oleksa Zaryckyj, a Ukrainian priest later imprisoned at the infamous Karlag and in 1963 martyred by the Soviet regime for his ministry.    The family traveled to the Kirghiz SSR after being released from the camps, then left Central Asia for Estonia.     As a boy, Schneider and his three siblings would attend clandestine Masses with their parents, often traveling 60 miles from the family’s home in Valga to Tartu, taking the first train in the morning under the cover of darkness and returning with the last train at night. Due to the great distance, infrequent visits by the clergy, and crackdowns by the Soviet authorities, they were able to make the trip only once a month.     In 1973, at the age of 12, shortly after making his first Holy Communion in secret, Schneider emigrated with his family to Rottweil in West Germany.    In 1982 in Austria, at the age of 21, Schneider joined the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra, a Roman Catholic religious order within the Opus Sanctorum Angelorum (“Work of the Holy Angels”). He was ordained a priest at the age of 28 by Bishop Manuel Pestana Filho of Anápolis, Brazil, on 25 March 1990, and spent several years as a priest in Brazil before returning to Central Asia.     Starting in 1999, he taught Patristics at Mary, Mother of the Church Seminary in Karaganda.    On June 2, 2006, he was named a bishop by Pope Benedict XVI and consecrated a bishop at the Altar of the Chair of Saint Peter in the Vatican by Cardinal Angelo Sodano.    In 2011 he was transferred to the position of auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Astana. He is the General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of Kazakhstan.    Schneider speaks German, Russian, Portuguese (from his years in Brazil), Spanish, English, French and Italian, and he reads Latin and Ancient Greek.    ***    I have met and spoken with Schneider, a quiet, thoughtful, committed man, on a number of occasions, including in the Domus Santa Marta when we were both guests there, and he has just written an article for the upcoming issue of Inside the Vatican magazine. (To subscribe — which would be very much appreciated — click here.)     A marvelous, very profound interview book by Diane Montagna with Bishop Schneider entitled Christus Vincit (“Christ Conquers”): Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age is available here.    ==============    The Latest Bishop Schneider Interview    In this interesting interview, given in Austria in recent days, Schneider makes two inter-related points worth highlighting:    1) that all of the various injections that have been proposed as “vaccinations” against the Coronavirus have used cells from aborted fetuses, either in their creation or in their testing. Schneider argues that, if this is the case, the injections are morally unacceptable. So two issues seem to require clarity and transparency: a) are the injections created, or tested, using aborted fetal cells? and b) if yes, is it in keeping with Catholic moral teaching to receive such injections, or is it immoral to use the cells of aborted babies even if the stated goal is to prevent harm to those who receive the aborted human fetus-derived injections?    2) that there has been a widespread disinclination on the part of global leaders and opinion-makers to entrust the various disputed questions about aspects of the Coronavirus crisis — from its origin to its harmfulness, from its treatment to its prevention — to a panel or committee of objective scientists, scholars, moral theologians, and thoughtful, wise men and women in general, to ensure that all the evidence is examined and weighed carefully, enabling humanity to face the crisis with the confidence that motives of political, economic, national or personal advantage have not in some way or other caused a “rush to judgment” (and “rush to vaccinate”) which may turn out to be harmful to many. In this regard, Schneider observes that the way a political and media consensus has been arrived at, and the way any viewpoints not echoing that consensus have been mocked, vilified and silenced, reminds him of the way the Communist Party functioned in the Soviet Union when he was a child.    Here is a link to this important interview with Bishop Schneider (link).    And here is my rough transcription of the interview:    ***    James Henry: What did you think of the global lockdown which started in March of 2020?    Bishop Schneider: It was evidently an exaggeration and out of proportions. It was like a program, and orchestrated action which was always in the same way all over the world. So it left some suspicion that there had been some orchestrated actions for a certain aim. So this lockdown had not only, in my opinion, a concrete medical aim but also another one: to create a psychological state of panic and fear in people, and so this was also a kind of intimidation of people which, I repeat, was out of proportion. There could have been safety measures for sanitary purposes, but in a reasonable way, but not with such drastic and in some way tyrannical methods. And these methods of tyranny, which were applied in some places, out of proportion, should cause in us to have to think about this, and reflect, and analyze this.    James Henry: Do you think these measures had a sinister purpose?    Bishop Schneider: Sinister purpose? I do not know concretely, but surely there was a kind of political purpose to use this situation of the Covid virus, this sickness which is of course present, this virus which attacks the health, but not in such an exaggerated presentation as has been presented to us every day, and also it continues, a kind of brainwashing methods in the mass media, and by the governments, this also creates suspicion. Why do they do this? This is not only for the safe health of people, but there must be another aim, a kind political aim to create new structures and systems of social life, probably of more control over every one of us. So a society of total control. And when there is a society of total control of individuals, this is very close to a society of slaves, where there is a small elite group that controls the rest. This impression is left now after this year of these experiences of lockdowns and other measures, with the evermore necessity to be vaccinated, therefore one can believe that there is the aim of creating a new social system, or order.    James Henry: How do you see this? Is it something you see as against God’s will for the social order? Is it immoral?    Bishop Schneider: Of course it’s immoral to have a total control of people. Because we are created also as persons, personalities. We have also a right of privacy, not to be controlled completely. And when you have no privacy, you are a slave. Slaves have no privacy. And this is against the dignity of the human person as a person, a personality. And we have freedom. Of course, freedom has limits in society, sure, and therefore there are laws and orders, but not to that extent, to have a total control even to the private sphere. And of course there are people who are evildoers, and terrorists. They have to be controlled, even in their private sphere. I mean evildoers, criminals, they should be prevented from doing harm to the population. But when the entire population is submitted to a total control, in some way we are all treated like dangerous persons who have to be controlled. This is against the dignity of human beings created by God.    James Henry: What is the position of the Church on the vaccinations?    Bishop Schneider: Yes, I am convinced that the vaccinations which have been produced by using cell lines from an abortion, from the assassination of an innocent child, or to be tested, this is intrinsically an evil. And a Christian cannot in any way, with no exception can you legitimize the use of this medicine or this vaccine. Since you know this, with full knowledge and with full freedom, you cannot do this, because in this way you are collaborating in a proximate way, not a remote way, in a proximate way with the horrible fetal industry, which is every day growing now. And there are two phenomena which we have to distinguish. One is the killing of the innocent baby, it is horrible, the abortion itself. And then the other, horrible phenomenon, the abuse of their body parts themselves in the biomedical research and industry which is now expanding. And so we are putting ourselves close to this horrible, cruel industry, abusing the weakest ones in our society, the unborn, and their body parts. And therefore we can never, there is no exception, we cannot use the abortion-tainted vaccines or medicines, from the moment that we have sure knowledge about this.    James Henry: To your knowledge, are a lot of the vaccinations using fetal tissues?    Bishop Schneider: At least those anti-Covid vaccines that are now propagated and admitted, like Astra-Zeneca, Johnson and Johnson, they, the pharmaceutical company itself, admits it, so, they themselves admit it. And even Pfizer, Moderna say that they tested, used aborted cells in the testing process. So they admit this. So there are no other anti-Covid vaccines that would be free from any connection to a cruelty, to abortion. So they have to have true, 100 percent cruelty-free vaccinations.    (…)    We have to be absolutely against the cruelty done to unborn children, and then the unworthy and degrading manner of using their body parts. This is a horrible thing. And we have to always to protest against this. When we admit an exception, in exceptional cases, then our protest is not credible and is weakening all our protest against this horrible industry, and it will be ineffective, de facto.    James Henry: About your background: were you deported to Kazakhstan?    (Bishop Schneider speaks of the history of his family.)    James Henry: Do you seem any similarities to the Communist period with what is happening now?    Bishop Schneider: Yes, I am seeing similarities. First, because there is no more opposition. There is only one view, in the politics, in all the public opinion, the official I mean, there is only one opinion admitted. Concretely now, in the Covid situation, there is not admitted another voice. This is already very dangerous. And the same with the gender ideology, in which as we know it is not possible to have another opinion and position.    And this is to me very similar to the Soviet time through which I lived. There was only one position admitted. And when you had another position, you were declared as an enemy, or as a spy, or as a conspiracy theorist. This was said in the Soviet time. When you had another opinion, you were declared as a conspiracy group, “You have a conspiracy theory. “And they said, “You have hate speech.” This expression “hate speech,” this came from the Communists. They said, “You are hating the Soviet system, you are hating the Soviet people.” Because you are against Communism. And so they are very close, these expressions today.    And then, the continuing brainwashing in the social media, in the official state-run or social media, mainstream media, the same brainwashing from morning to evening, always, every hour.     The Communists did some informations about Communism, about the beautiful life of the new Communist style, and so on, in the same way we are now experiencing, for almost more than one year, we are brainwashed from morning to evening with the so-called Covid news, which are not real, we cannot prove them, we cannot examine them, in an objective (way), there is no objective committee, no scientific, no social (committee), to examine all this data we are receiving.     And now we have, the entire population of the world has, the sign of the admission to this system: the mask. It’s a visible sign to which we have submitted. Even if so many scientists, doctors and people of common sense say that in so many cases the masks are really useless and against any meaning. But it is continuing, because the new social global system wants to have a concrete exterior sign of submission. And this expression of the continuous emergency situation which they created and even expanded. So I hope there will rise up people with common sense from diverse parts of the society, of good will, to resist the new forms of dictatorship in the Western world, to… that our society will receive again a worthy way of life, which really corresponds to the dignity of the human person created in the image and the likeness of God.     This society should be renewed, and I am convinced it can be only renewed with Christ, the only king of humanity, the only savior, and with the commandments of God, which only lead humanity to happiness and peace.    [End, Interview with Bishop Schneider]

What Happens if the ElectionAudits Go Trump’s Way? By Andrew W. Coy American Thinker June 13, 2021 (emphasis added) HAT TIP: Rip McIntosh What will the military, the Supreme Court, and the people eventually do?  How will the military, the Supreme Court, and the masses react to the outcome?  How will the military move, how will the Supreme Court rule, and eventually do the masses rise up and take to the streets…if it becomes clear that the presidential election of 2020 was compromised, was stolen, or at the very least had way too many abnormalities and illegalities and thus the wrong person is possibly sitting in the White House?   What happens if it becomes clear that President Trump was re-elected and the Progressives actually stole the election?  What happens if we find out that the election was manipulated?  What happens if? We might find out these answers in the coming months.  Maybe.  What about the forensic audits of the popular votes in the contested key states? Before the actual election in November, President Trump predicted cheating as you’ve never seen before.  President Trump said there would be voter fraud like never before in U.S. history.  Many people throughout the White House believed and were certain that something felonious was about to happen.   At 10:30 on Election Night, President Trump was up by good margins in the key states.  Then the key states shut down the election tabulations of votes “for the night.”  (By the way, the stopping of counting votes for the night had never happened before in presidential history.)  And then, when we woke up in the morning after the tallying of votes was supposedly shut down “for the night,” Joe Biden had pulled ahead, stayed ahead, and assumed the White House.  As of this writing, Biden has 306 Electoral College votes, and President Trump has 232 votes.  Two hundred seventy votes is the magic number to win the presidency. But what about the forensic audits in the key contested states?   Starting with Arizona, then Georgia, then Pennsylvania, then… The forensic audit of the popular votes in Arizona being conducted right now is intriguing and also a little scary.  The forensic audit of the popular votes should be able to catch and identify voting irregularities, cheating, abnormalities, and felonious actions.  What happens if not only Arizona flips, but also Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? The vote-winning margins in these four states were about 1%, or even much less.  Not a whole lot of cheating and theft required to flip the states, if that is what actually historically happened.   With Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes, with Georgia’s 16, with Pennsylvania’s 20, and with Wisconsin’s 10, if those slim margins went to President Trump rather than Biden, the Electoral College vote would be 289 votes for Trump and just 249 for Biden.   With Trump needing only 270 for the win, maybe that is why the Progressives are so determined that the forensic audits should not happen.  Maybe that is why the Deep State cabal does not want light to shine in on the actual votes last November. What would happen next?  ● What does the military do?   ● How does the Supreme Court rule?   ● And then how do the masses react?   ● How do both the Patriot and also Progressive citizens react?   ● Does the military put troops and tanks on the streets, especially in Washington, D.C., to keep Biden in the White House?   ● Does the military arrest Trump for winning?   ● Does the Supreme Court finally “man up” and hear the case of election fraud?  ● Does the Supreme Court rule that President Trump is actually president?   ● Does the Supreme Court rule that Trump is President Trump, but then the military vetoes the Court’s decision and keeps Biden in the White House? What then do the people do?  ● How then do the masses react to a probable fraudulent election?   ● Do the Patriots finally take to the streets for a “mostly peaceful protest” of the election?   ● Or, do the Patriots say they have had enough of the election fraud and fake president, and it gets violent?   ● Does it become the Reds/Patriots versus Blues/Progressives on our streets?   What happens to America if?  It is looking more and more as if, no matter what, the military stays with Biden.  The military is looking more “woke” than the Berkeley campus as the military drives out Christians, conservatives, and constitutionalists.  The military is more concerned with fighting a nonexistent threat of global warming and a trickle of “white supremacy,” appearing unconcerned about a rising Chinese communist menace. The Supreme Court might be different.  There were three Supreme Court members who actually wanted to hear the cases of presidential election fraud.  They wanted to see the facts, but it takes four Court members to agree to hear a case.  The two key members of the Supreme Court would be Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.  It is probable that Barrett and Kavanaugh feel guilty and impotent because of their weak refusal to be actual Supreme Court members and hear tough, politically charged cases.  The two of them might have actually changed their minds and toughened up and will agree to hear new challenges of the 2020 presidential election — that is, if, if, if the four states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin flip their Electoral College votes to Trump, and thus Trump has exceeded the 270 hurdle.   Or, will the Supreme Court cower again, just as it did last December?  It is hard to tell at this date if all this reads like a historical chapter of an election held in a banana republic south of the border, or does it read like a cheap novel that no one would believe could play out in America?  The military, the Supreme Court, and the masses will have a lot to say either way.  ● Do the Patriots simply wait until 2022 or 2024 and let Biden stay, even if not actually elected? ●  Do the Progressives say that under no circumstances, including the jailing of political opponents, does President Trump ever get back into where he was legally elected? Keep a sharp eye on the audits going on now and throughout the summer.  What happens if, by Labor Day weekend, more than half of the American people believe there was indeed election fraud and criminality? It might not be pretty.  It might get seriously ugly.  But, these professional forensic audits are necessary.   They must be done professionally and accurately.   They will have a big say in who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next three years.   Maybe.

24

Dr. Peter McCullough Jun 20, 2021, 10:45 PM Dr. Peter McCullough – COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed 50,000 Americans  Sat 10:30 am +00:00, 19 Jun 2021   The pandemic was planned, and is “a crime against humanity.” “We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC,” the doctor revealed. “We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”Dr. McCullough: COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed Up to 50,000 Americans, According to Whistleblowers  a Heine(henrymakow.com)     In an extraordinary interview last week, Dr. Peter McCullough, an American professor of Medicine and Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University, declared that the world has been subjected to a form of bioterrorism, and that the suppression of early treatments for COVID-19–such as hydroxychloroquine– “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.” Dr. McCullough made the explosive comments during a webinar on June 11, with  Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a German trial lawyer, who believes the pandemic was planned, and is “a crime against humanity.” McCullough said he believes the bioterrorism has come in two stages–the first wave being the rollout of the coronavirus, and the second, the rollout of the dangerous vaccines, which he said may already be responsible for the deaths of up to 50,000 Americans. Dr. McCullough practices internal medicine and cardiology, is the editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, senior editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, editor of the textbook Cardiorenal Medicine, and president of the Cardiorenal Society. “The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people–about one percent of many populations–but generated great fear,” McCullough explained during the Oval Media webinar with other doctors. He noted that the virus targeted “mostly the frail and the elderly, but for otherwise well people, it was much like having the common cold.” Dr. McCullough later elaborated that he has treated many patients with the disease, written papers on it, had the disease himself, and has also seen a death in his own family due to COVID. The doctor said he believes that fear of the virus was used very quickly to generate policies that would hugely impact human life, such as the draconian lockdowns. “Every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse,” he pointed out. McCullough explained that early on, as a doctor treating COVID patients, he came up with an early treatment regimen for those struck with the virus, which reduced hospital stays by about 85 percent, and said he began publishing papers on what he had learned. The doctor noted that he was “met with resistance at all levels” in terms of actually treating patients and publishing his papers. “Fortunately I had enough publication strength to publish the only two papers in the entire medical literature that teaches doctors how to treat COVID-19 patients at home to prevent hospitalization,” he said. “What we have discovered is that the suppression of early treatment was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine, and the entire program–and in a sense, bioterrorism phase one– was rolled out, [and] was really about keeping the population in fear, and in isolation preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.” McCullough explained that both the coronavirus and the vaccines deliver “to the human body, the spike protein, [which is] the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.” He acknowledged that he couldn’t come out and say all that on national television because the medical establishment has done such a thorough job of propagandizing the issue. “What we have learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t communicate with our propagandized colleagues in major medical centers, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they’ve been hypnotized.” “Good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women. I think when these doctors wake up up from their trance, they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people,” he said, echoing what he, and Dr. Harvey Risch, professor at the Yale School of Public Health, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham during an interview last month. McCullough told Fuellmich that last summer, he started an early treatment initiative to keep COVID patients out of the hospital, which involved organizing multiple groups of medical doctors in the United States and abroad.  The doctor noted that some governments tried to block these doctors from providing the treatments, but with the help of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, they were able to put out a home patient guide, and in the U.S., organized four different tele-medical services, and fifteen regional tele-medical services. This way, people who were stricken with COVID-19, were able to call in to these services and get the medications they needed prescribed to local pharmacies, or mail order distribution pharmacies, he explained. “Without the government really even understanding what was going on, we crushed the epidemic curve of the United States,” McCullough claimed. “Toward the end of December and January, we basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services, and to this day, we treat about 25 percent of the U.S. COVID-19 population that are actually at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems that present with severe symptoms.” The doctor said that his belief that the suppression of early treatment was “tightly linked” to the vaccines, is what that led him to focus his attention on warning the public about the vaccines. “We know that  this is phase two of bioterrorism, we don’t know who’s behind it, but we know that they want a needle in every arm to inject messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA into every human being,” he said. “They want every human being.” The doctor later warned that the experimental vaccines could ultimately lead to cancers, and sterilize young women. Dr. McCullough said his goal is to set apart a large group of people that the system can not get to, which would include those who have already had the virus, those with immunity, children, pregnant women, and child-bearing women. The cardiologist went on to say that because there is no clinical benefit in young people whatsoever to get the vaccine, even one case of myocarditis or pericarditis following the shots “is too many,” yet even though the CDC is aware of hundreds of alarming reports of cases of heart swelling in teenagers and young adults, they’re only going to reevaluate the matter later on in June. He accused the medical establishment of neglecting to to do anything to reduce the risks of the vaccines. As someone who has chaired over two dozen vaccine safety monitoring boards for the FDA, and National Institute for Health, McCullough had room to criticize how the vaccines have been rolled out. “With this program, there is no critical event committee, there is no data-safety monitoring board, and there’s no human ethics committee. Those structures are mandatory for all large clinical investigations, and so the word that’s really used for what’s going on is malfeasance, that’s wrongdoing of people in authority,” the doctor explained. “Without any safety measures in place, you can see what’s going on,” he continued. “Basically it’s the largest application of a biological product with the greatest amount of morbidity and mortality in the history of our country.” “We are at over 5,000 deaths so far, as you know, and I think about 15,000 hospitalizations. In the EU it’s over 10,000 deaths. We are working with the Center for Medicaid (CMS) data, and we have a pretty good lead that the real number is tenfold.” McCullough explained that because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database only amounts to about 10 percent of the bad reactions to the vaccines, his team has had to go to other sources for information. “We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC,” the doctor revealed. “We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.” Dr. McCullough said he’s seen people in his office with cases of portal vein thrombosis, myocarditis, and serious memory problems post-vaccination. “It’s so disconcerting,” he said. He said he was recently viciously attacked in the media by a woman from Singapore who is linked to the Gates Foundation. Dr. McCullough went on to express a chilling theory that the vaccines could have been designed to reduce the world’s population. “If you said this is all a Gates Foundation program to reduce the population, it’s fitting very well with that hypothesis, right? The first wave was to kill the old people by the respiratory infection, the second wave is to take the survivors and target the young people and sterilize them,” he said. “If you notice the messaging in the country, in the United States, they’re not even interested in old people now. They want the kids. They want the kids, kids, kids, kids kids! They’re such a focus on the kids,” he said, noting that in Toronto, Canada, last month, they lured the children with promises of ice-cream to get the jab. According to one report, the government of Ontario–which doesn’t require parental consent for children to get vaccinated–encouraged the kids to get the Pfizer vaccine at a pop-up vaccine event. “They held the parents back, and they were vaccinating the kids,” the doctor railed. He said his Canadian wife’s mother was forcibly vaccinated against her will. McCullough predicted that the United States is gearing up to force people into getting the injections.—–Related – “Chairman Leng Youbin, told a forum that sales [of infant milk] will drop sharply in the coming one and two years since many women can not bear children within six months of coronavirus vaccination, mainland media reported.” https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/2/174200/China-Feihe-to-buy-back-shareshttps://www.henrymakow.com/2021/06/covid-vaccines-have-already-killed.html?_ga=2.30785533.319600760.1622905010-903648786.1588285733 – COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed 50,000 Americans Sat 10:30 am +00:00, 19 Jun 2021  2posted by WeaverJune 18, 2021 The pandemic was planned, and is “a crime against humanity.” “We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC,” the doctor revealed. “We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”Dr. McCullough: COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed Up to 50,000 Americans, According to Whistleblowers  By Debra Heine(henrymakow.com)   In an extraordinary interview last week, Dr. Peter McCullough, an American professor of Medicine and Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University, declared that the world has been subjected to a form of bioterrorism, and that the suppression of early treatments for COVID-19–such as hydroxychloroquine– “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.” Dr. McCullough made the explosive comments during a webinar on June 11, with  Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a German trial lawyer, who believes the pandemic was planned, and is “a crime against humanity.” McCullough said he believes the bioterrorism has come in two stages–the first wave being the rollout of the coronavirus, and the second, the rollout of the dangerous vaccines, which he said may already be responsible for the deaths of up to 50,000 Americans. Dr. McCullough practices internal medicine and cardiology, is the editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, senior editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, editor of the textbook Cardiorenal Medicine, and president of the Cardiorenal Society. “The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people–about one percent of many populations–but generated great fear,” McCullough explained during the Oval Media webinar with other doctors. He noted that the virus targeted “mostly the frail and the elderly, but for otherwise well people, it was much like having the common cold.” Dr. McCullough later elaborated that he has treated many patients with the disease, written papers on it, had the disease himself, and has also seen a death in his own family due to COVID. The doctor said he believes that fear of the virus was used very quickly to generate policies that would hugely impact human life, such as the draconian lockdowns. “Every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse,” he pointed out. McCullough explained that early on, as a doctor treating COVID patients, he came up with an early treatment regimen for those struck with the virus, which reduced hospital stays by about 85 percent, and said he began publishing papers on what he had learned. The doctor noted that he was “met with resistance at all levels” in terms of actually treating patients and publishing his papers. “Fortunately I had enough publication strength to publish the only two papers in the entire medical literature that teaches doctors how to treat COVID-19 patients at home to prevent hospitalization,” he said. “What we have discovered is that the suppression of early treatment was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine, and the entire program–and in a sense, bioterrorism phase one– was rolled out, [and] was really about keeping the population in fear, and in isolation preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.” McCullough explained that both the coronavirus and the vaccines deliver “to the human body, the spike protein, [which is] the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.” He acknowledged that he couldn’t come out and say all that on national television because the medical establishment has done such a thorough job of propagandizing the issue. “What we have learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t communicate with our propagandized colleagues in major medical centers, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they’ve been hypnotized.” “Good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women. I think when these doctors wake up up from their trance, they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people,” he said, echoing what he, and Dr. Harvey Risch, professor at the Yale School of Public Health, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham during an interview last month. McCullough told Fuellmich that last summer, he started an early treatment initiative to keep COVID patients out of the hospital, which involved organizing multiple groups of medical doctors in the United States and abroad.  The doctor noted that some governments tried to block these doctors from providing the treatments, but with the help of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, they were able to put out a home patient guide, and in the U.S., organized four different tele-medical services, and fifteen regional tele-medical services. This way, people who were stricken with COVID-19, were able to call in to these services and get the medications they needed prescribed to local pharmacies, or mail order distribution pharmacies, he explained. “Without the government really even understanding what was going on, we crushed the epidemic curve of the United States,” McCullough claimed. “Toward the end of December and January, we basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services, and to this day, we treat about 25 percent of the U.S. COVID-19 population that are actually at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems that present with severe symptoms.” The doctor said that his belief that the suppression of early treatment was “tightly linked” to the vaccines, is what that led him to focus his attention on warning the public about the vaccines. “We know that  this is phase two of bioterrorism, we don’t know who’s behind it, but we know that they want a needle in every arm to inject messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA into every human being,” he said. “They want every human being.” The doctor later warned that the experimental vaccines could ultimately lead to cancers, and sterilize young women. Dr. McCullough said his goal is to set apart a large group of people that the system can not get to, which would include those who have already had the virus, those with immunity, children, pregnant women, and child-bearing women. The cardiologist went on to say that because there is no clinical benefit in young people whatsoever to get the vaccine, even one case of myocarditis or pericarditis following the shots “is too many,” yet even though the CDC is aware of hundreds of alarming reports of cases of heart swelling in teenagers and young adults, they’re only going to reevaluate the matter later on in June. He accused the medical establishment of neglecting to to do anything to reduce the risks of the vaccines. As someone who has chaired over two dozen vaccine safety monitoring boards for the FDA, and National Institute for Health, McCullough had room to criticize how the vaccines have been rolled out. “With this program, there is no critical event committee, there is no data-safety monitoring board, and there’s no human ethics committee. Those structures are mandatory for all large clinical investigations, and so the word that’s really used for what’s going on is malfeasance, that’s wrongdoing of people in authority,” the doctor explained. “Without any safety measures in place, you can see what’s going on,” he continued. “Basically it’s the largest application of a biological product with the greatest amount of morbidity and mortality in the history of our country.” “We are at over 5,000 deaths so far, as you know, and I think about 15,000 hospitalizations. In the EU it’s over 10,000 deaths. We are working with the Center for Medicaid (CMS) data, and we have a pretty good lead that the real number is tenfold.” McCullough explained that because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database only amounts to about 10 percent of the bad reactions to the vaccines, his team has had to go to other sources for information. “We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC,” the doctor revealed. “We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.” Dr. McCullough said he’s seen people in his office with cases of portal vein thrombosis, myocarditis, and serious memory problems post-vaccination. “It’s so disconcerting,” he said. He said he was recently viciously attacked in the media by a woman from Singapore who is linked to the Gates Foundation. Dr. McCullough went on to express a chilling theory that the vaccines could have been designed to reduce the world’s population. “If you said this is all a Gates Foundation program to reduce the population, it’s fitting very well with that hypothesis, right? The first wave was to kill the old people by the respiratory infection, the second wave is to take the survivors and target the young people and sterilize them,” he said. “If you notice the messaging in the country, in the United States, they’re not even interested in old people now. They want the kids. They want the kids, kids, kids, kids kids! They’re such a focus on the kids,” he said, noting that in Toronto, Canada, last month, they lured the children with promises of ice-cream to get the jab. According to one report, the government of Ontario–which doesn’t require parental consent for children to get vaccinated–encouraged the kids to get the Pfizer vaccine at a pop-up vaccine event. “They held the parents back, and they were vaccinating the kids,” the doctor railed. He said his Canadian wife’s mother was forcibly vaccinated against her will. McCullough predicted that the United States is gearing up to force people into getting the injections.—–Related – “Chairman Leng Youbin, told a forum that sales [of infant milk] will drop sharply in the coming one and two years since many women can not bear children within six months of coronavirus vaccination, mainland media reported.” https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/2/174200/China-Feihe-to-buy-back-shareshttps://www.henrymakow.com/2021/06/covid-vaccines-have-already-killed.html?_ga=2.30785533.319600760.1622905010-903648786.1588285733

Our American Catholic Rubicon

Robert Royal

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2021

Nearly three-quarters of the U.S. bishops (166-58) voted Friday to prepare a document about Catholics receiving Holy Communion. The draft will then be debated and voted on at their annual November meeting. The bishops’ conference doesn’t have authority to tell specific politicians such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi not to come forward at Mass (though individual bishops may). Which is unfortunate, because the Church has reached a kind of Rubicon in America.The moment is unprecedented. Bishop Liam Cary of Baker, Oregon, had it exactly right: “We’ve never had a situation like this where the executive is a Catholic president opposed to the teaching of the church.” Several bishops – Gomez, Naumann, Daly, Hying, and others – also spoke up boldly. And SF Archbishop Cordileone (“lion-heart”) put it bluntly: “Our credibility is on the line. . . .The eyes of the whole country are on us right now.”It’s no surprise that a clash has arisen over the reception and very nature of the Eucharist now that we have a progressive Catholic presidency. We already know that a majority of American Catholics think – if they think about it at all, since three-quarters never attend Mass – that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ. Forces hostile to the Church are happy to cite that fact.To allow leaders – at the highest levels of government now – who call themselves Catholics to continue to vigorously promote abortion (forget the “personally opposed” of days gone by), homosexuality, and curbs on religious liberty means that what little public influence the Church still retains is on a fast track to oblivion. We’re in peril of crossing a line after which the Faith will be under attack not only by an aggressive world with a wholly different understanding of what it means to be human – but by wayward Catholics themselves.For instance, also on Friday, sixty members of Congress (among them abortion stalwarts such as Rosa De Lauro and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) signed a joint letter to the bishops, on Congressional stationery, presuming to instruct them on Catholic teaching. You can read this eye-popping text here, which urges the bishops not to take a drastic step over “one issue.” In those two words, the challenge to the bishops becomes clear: for numbers of public Catholics, destroying human life by the hundreds of thousands in the womb every year is just another “issue.”The secular press and certain progressive Catholics have been touting the letter (though they have been strangely incurious why 17 Catholic Democrats did not join the other 60). They claim the letter is in harmony with Pope Francis’ non-confrontational methods: inviting people in, rather than condemning them. But that approach has been tried for decades. And there has been no recent “Francis Effect” – a tide of people coming back to the Church because of the softer approach.  If that were an effective pastoral strategy, Germany would be bursting with converts and reverts. Which, sadly, is not the case.*The sixty members of Congress leaned heavily on the Second Vatican Council, which called for reading the “signs of the times.” (Gaudium et Spes, ¶4) Whatever the situation in 1965, the signs of the times now all point to the continuing decline of the Church and the swift rise of various social currents actively hostile to Catholicism.We’re used to politicians making self-serving public statements. These members of Congress have taken up the argument of a very few bishops that there should be no “weaponization” of the Eucharist. They’re partly right. But just who is trying to threaten whom, when the Church is merely trying to maintain its own disciplines in the face of the most aggressively anti-Catholic administration ever?Church teaching about the Eucharist and who should receive it remains what it has always been. Even Pope Francis, in a calculated effort to suggest otherwise about the divorce and remarried, limited himself to suggesting small changes in two ambiguous footnotes in Amoris Laetitia. That wariness indicates that even he – whom many claim opposes the current moves by our bishops – is unwilling to openly contradict what our tradition has affirmed since the beginning.Sad to say, some American bishops – the usual suspects – continue with strained and very weak arguments against action. Cardinal Cupich argued that before the bishops can do anything, they should engage pro-abortion Catholic lawmakers to find out why they believe and act as they do.Is there anyone who doesn’t already know that? Or who thinks that raising this point is anything other than a (quite poor) delaying tactic? It’s a safe bet that the cardinal knows precisely why, say, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) advocates for abortion and much more. The previous archbishop of Chicago met with Durbin more than once and explained to him why he was wrong. Has Cupich?Among the other usual suspects, San Diego’s Bishop Robert McElroy repeated his charge about “weaponizing” the Eucharist and even went further to say that disciplining dissenters would be a “theology of exclusion and unworthiness.” But the California bishop is confusing political and religious terms here.It may be impossible in post-postmodern America to “exclude” or call anyone unworthy. But Jesus Himself, who was not a political triangulator, often warned people that, by their actions, they may exclude themselves from eternal life. And St. Paul, who knew as much about the Faith as anyone in San Diego, wrote: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily [Gk. anaxios], shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27)Our American bishops have done something brave, even beautiful. And they will face turbulent and ugly days because of it. They didn’t start this fight, and some – who were not responsible for the poor catechesis we’ve suffered with for decades – will pay the price for others who were lax or reluctant to speak out. But they’ve faced a defining moment square on. Win or lose in the political arena, they deserve our respect and gratitude. *Image: The Communion of the Apostles by Luca Giordano, c. 1700 {Museum of Fine Arts Boston}© 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.About the AuthorLatest ArticlesRobert RoyalDr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., and currently serves as the St. John Henry Newman Visiting Chair in Catholic Studies at Thomas More College. His most recent books are Columbus and the Crisis of the West and A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century.

A House Divided by E. P. Unum June 21, 2021 (emphasis added)  Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh            On June 16, 1858, in Springfield Illinois, some 163 years ago, and only 82 years after our Republic came into being, Abraham Lincoln spoke to over 1,000 delegates and eloquently addressed the hotly debated issue of slavery. In that speech, he uttered these famous words: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot permanently endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided”            And so it was, but not before we engaged in a great Civil War resulting in the loss of more American lives than the sum of all the other conflicts our nation has ever been involved in at any time in our 245-year history.            Today we are once again a House Divided. A great schism has been driven through our nation dividing us on deep political, moral, and religious issues that go to the heart of who we are as a people. For example, there are serious questions that strike at the core of our very foundation and the principles we stand for: Are we to remain the Constitutional Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, or are we to become a socialist nation?  Should our government be centralized with all decisions coming out of Washington D.C. or should we continue, as we have since the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, to be decentralized with States sharing responsibilities for governance?  Should we rely on big or small government, each with their respective consequences of whether power should be vested in a central government that is all-encompassing or, in the alternative, continue with a decentralized system that has helped America become the greatest most prosperous nation in the history of the world; a nation based on the belief that government should be an extension of the will of the people with power vested in the consent of the governed?  Should we be a nation that prides itself on the rule of law, or should we resort to the rule of the street?  The division today is also sadly and inexorably tied to pure hatred and vitriol directed at one man, President Donald Trump, whose only “sin” is that he is not a politician, not a lawyer, speaks in very blunt, direct, and sometimes crass terms, and does not come from the “elite class”. He is, instead, a successful businessman and CEO, and has an excellent command of economics, is a master negotiator, and knows how to lead and get things done. He also worked on our behalf for free, donating his entire salary as President, $1.6 million over four years, back to charities and government programs. Yet the vitriol continues to this day even after he has left office. For me, the most difficult aspect of our Divided House is seeing my countrymen so filled with anger and hatred that it cripples their ability to reason. I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I have known all my life so hate-filled that they agree with opinions they would never express as their own. I am puzzled by the sacrifice of journalistic ethics on the altar of financial and power expediency, and, at times, I think that I may well have entered the Twilight Zone.  One can’t justify this insanity. Neither can one reason with people so entrenched in their beliefs that they are unable to even listen to alternative opinions and instead resort to name-calling and insults. We have become a nation that has lost its collective mind! Consider the following sometimes offered as jokes but more often than not are sad doses of reality: ●  If a boy or man pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him. Boys can compete against girls in athletic events destroying every aspect of competition and fair play. The ‘playing field’ is no longer fair. ● Somehow it’s un-American for the Census to count how many Americans are in America. ●  Russians influencing our elections are bad, but illegals voting in our elections are good. Russians have always attempted to influence our elections. China now does it in plain sight, but, according to Joe Biden, China “are not bad folks”. Right. ●  It was cool for Joe Biden to “blackmail” the President of Ukraine, but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it. ●  Twenty is too young to drink a beer, but eighteen is old enough to vote. ● People who have never owned slaves should pay reparations to people who have never been slaves. I often wonder whether the descendants of some 360,000 Union soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War to free the slaves should not somehow be compensated by the generations who were freed? No one ever talks about that. ●  People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students who took out huge loans for their degrees in music history and essential oils and cannot find a job. ● Immigrants with diseases such as tuberculosis and the Chinese Virus are welcome, but, as citizens, you better be able to prove you have been vaccinated. ●  South African doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate to the US must go through a lengthy rigorous vetting process, but illiterate gang-bangers who jump the southern fence ( or walk through openings these days) are welcome. I am still trying to figure out how you can walk 2,000 miles from South America in a caravan of immigrants and reach our southern border overweight and with a cell phone. ● $5 billion for border security and a Wall is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not. Heck, the Obamacare website cost more than the Trump Border Wall and the Obamacare website didn’t work! Trump’s Wall did. ●  If you cheat to get into college you can go to prison, but if you cheat to get into our country you get to go to college for “free.” (Of course, it is not free because this cost is paid for by the taxes you and I pay.) ● People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President. Boys can use Girl’s restrooms and vice versa, and no one sees anything wrong about this? ● We read about and see other countries like Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia adopting Socialism and their economies collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us. And college professors teach this to our young people. ●  Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now. Look at cities like New York, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Atlanta. Churches are burned, businesses destroyed and looted, monuments torn down, police and innocent people killed, but no one is held accountable….all because of blind hatred. ●  Criminals are caught and released back into society immediately, then hurt more people. Stopping them is bad because it’s a violation of their rights. ●  And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us “racists”? Indeed, today the word “racism” is the most common word used to somehow justify everything and anything.Nothing seems to make sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility, and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it’s racist to refer to it as The Chinese Virus even though it began in China. We are clearly living in an upside-down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.            In 245 years, a mere blip on the radar screen of existence compared to other nations of the world, our country has endured incredible hardships and built the most remarkable country ever known to man.  ●  We pioneered the west, conquered disease, created the most respected healthcare system on earth with innovations in medicine and research that have saved millions of lives, and we shared all of this with the world.  ●  We have fought two World Wars freeing Europe from totalitarianism twice in the twentieth century, then rebuilt 19 nations in Europe and the entire country of Japan from the devastation of WW II.  ●  We have put men on the moon and begun the exploration of our solar system, and we have created more wealth and the greatest standard of living of any country on earth…and,  ●  We have based all of this on a firm belief in freedom for every individual and a government whose only sovereign power comes from the people.  And today, somehow, young restless people in government want to cast all of this aside in favor of some fleeting, socialist, utopia they seek to impose on us.           It is a blueprint for disaster and it must be stopped.            I believe that today because our House is again divided, we must once again take pride in American Exceptionalism. We need to return to doing the right thing as opposed to doing what “feels good”. We need to return to teaching our children about our history, about those who came before us, what we have accomplished, about values such as integrity, honor, commitment, courage, perseverance, and respect for authority and our elders, and, above all, remind them that we are a nation founded on the Judeo-Christian belief in an Almighty God whose Providence has blessed this great land.           Abraham Lincoln led our great nation through difficult and challenging times and a bloody Civil War where more Americans perished than in all the other wars our nation has been engaged in. But he reminded us, that even in times of great despair, he was driven to his knees in prayer “because he had nowhere else to go”. He also said so eloquently, that “it is difficult to get mud on your face when your eyes are fixed squarely on the stars.”            Those words have always made sense to me. I hope they do to you as well. All of us today have a sacred responsibility to stand up and be counted; to express our concern about how our children are being educated; to cast aside the destructive, divisive, and corrosive Critical Race Theory and reinstitute American History and civics in elementary and secondary schools, and once again bring God back into lives, our government and in our classrooms. Even if you no longer have children in school, each of us has a responsibility to step up and do the right thing.           Let your voices be heard.

COMMENTARY’s July–August double issue kicks off with a collection of articles about Jews, Jew-hatred, and the Jewish state.  Liel Leibovitz argues, “No, Jews Aren’t White.” We’re our own thing, and whatever privilege we possess is conditional. COMMENTARY contributing editor Bret Stephens explores “The Paradoxes of Benjamin Netanyahu.” Bibi is the fox who is also the hedgehog.  Seth Mandel exposes “The Jews Who Are Complicit in Jew Hatred” and explains that such complicity is a feature, not a bug, of the horrors of the past month. And in “An American Trapped in an Englishman’s Body,” Roger Bennett offers a memoir of a Jewish boyhood in Liverpool. *** In “How U.S. Schools Became Obsessed with Race,” Robert Pondiscio explains that critical race theory took over in two ways: first gradually, then suddenly. COMMENTARY senior writer Christine Rosen demonstrates how the villains of the pandemic are the leaders of America’s teachers’ unions in “Union Busted.” In Politics & Ideas, James Kirchick reviews After the Fall, by Ben Rhodes; Michael Brendan Dougherty reviews The Unbroken Thread, by Sohrab Ahmari; Eli Lake reviews A Drop of Treason, by Jonathan Stevenson; Ronald Radosh reviews Ethel Rosenberg, by Anne Sebba; Rick Marin reviews Competing with Idiots, by Nick Davis; and Terry Teachout contemplates the life and work of Nelson Riddle, “The Man Who (Re)made Sinatra.” In this month’s Tech Commentary, James B. Meigs dives deep into “The Lab-Leak-Theory Cover-Up“; in Washington Commentary, Matthew Continetti describes how “Manchin Goes Rogue“; in Media Commentary, Christine Rosen shows “How the Media Ignore Jew-Haters“; in Jewish Commentary, Meir Y. Soloveichik considers “How Chancellor Kurz Redeemed Vienna“; and in Hollywood Commentary, Rob Long reveals “The Game of Showbiz Crap(s).” If you are not yet a subscriber to the print or online edition of COMMENTARY, click here to put your intellectual life in order.

Read our July/August issue

Inventor of mRNA Interviewed About Injection Dangers

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

• June 21, 2021

PreviousNextShocking Case of Academic CensorshipWhy Mushrooms Increase Longevityhttps://articles.mercola.com/themes/blogs/mercola/VideoPanel.aspx?PostID=1095984&v=20210621

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

• Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology. He has grave concerns about the lack of transparency of side effects, censoring of discussion and the lack of informed consent that these bring
• Free SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is biologically active — contrary to initial assumptions — and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems. These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people who have received the COVID-19 “vaccine”
• The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Data suggests the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%
• Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal
• The COVID-19 injections have emergency use authorization only, which can only be granted if there are no safe and effective remedies available. Such remedies do exist, but have been actively censored and suppressed

In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist, interviews Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,¹ and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID-19 gene therapies.

I realize that this is an absolutely epic three-hour interview but if you ever valued what I have been teaching, you must at a bare minimum very carefully read this entire article.

Malone is the scientist that actually invented the technology that makes the COVID jab possible and he spills the beans on just how this introduction has been ethically compromised to make informed consent absolutely impossible for the average person. Watch the interview if your schedule allows, but carefully read this article for sure.

Kirsch recently published the article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?” in which he reviews how and why he has changed his mind about the COVID-19 “vaccines.” This after he got both doses of the Moderna shot, as have his three daughters.

If you or someone you know is equivocal about the COVID jab, then please, you simply MUST read Kirsh’s article as it is clearly one of the best pieces written on the topic and provides the other side of the story that is NEVER given in the mainstream media. Remember, without full disclosure of the vaccine’s risk, it is impossible to have informed consent.² If you read Kirsch’s article, you will get, in great detail, the other side that the conventional media refuses to share. He writes:

“I recently learned that these vaccines have likely killed over 25,800 Americans (which I confirmed 3 different ways) and disabled at least 1,000,000 more. And we’re only halfway to the finish line. We need to PAUSE these vaccines NOW before more people are killed.

Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (approximately a 0.3% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, ‘Just say NO.’

The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say ‘NO! NO! NO!’

In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made.

You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

As explained by Malone, many months ago he warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous. The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely.

Well, they were wrong on both accounts. It’s since been well-established that, indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gets free, and that it is biologically active and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 “vaccine.” For more in-depth information about how the spike protein causes these problems, please see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

Using the word vaccine isn’t really appropriate here, and I don’t want to contribute to the misuse of that word. These injections are clearly not vaccines. They don’t work like any previous conventional vaccines. As the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccines clearly says in the interview, they are gene therapy. So, please understand that when I say vaccine or vaccination, I’m really talking about gene therapy.

Spike Protein Disseminates Throughout Your Body

In a recent interview³ with Alex Pierson, Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., discussed previously unseen research obtained from the Japanese regulatory agency through a freedom of information act request.

The study was a biodistribution study done by Pfizer, which showed that the mRNA in the vaccine does not stay in and around the vaccination site but is widely distributed in the body, as is the spike protein.⁴

This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding. I detailed these and other findings in “Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine.”

Dangerous Corners Were Cut

The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Kirsch cites data suggesting the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%.⁵ The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor uptick. Kirsch writes:⁶

“It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks … She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago.

The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause).

No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.”

Disturbingly, the Pfizer biodistribution data package reveals that corners were cut in the interest of speed, and one of the research facets that were skipped was reproductive toxicology. Yet, despite the lack of an initial reproductive toxicology investigation and a rapidly growing number of reports of miscarriages (which is likely to be a significant undercount), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Why is that?

Is There Purposeful Suppression of VAERS Data?

What’s more, as discussed in the interview, there’s evidence that data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is being manipulated as reports that were filed are now missing. Why were they removed? And without the filers’ consent?

Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.

Even with that manipulation, the number of deaths reported post-vaccination against COVID-19 is beyond anything we’ve ever seen. According to Kirsch, the rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,⁷ which historically has been the most hazardous.

Other serious effects are also off the charts. For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.⁸ Additionally, many young people are actually dying as a result of this myocarditis.⁹

Malone points out that, in re-reading the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots, he discovered that the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the latitude to do so.

As noted by Weinstein, this is yet another anomaly that needs an answer. Why did they opt for such lax data capture, because without it, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products. You cannot identify the danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

“The whole logic of EUA is you’re basically substituting real-time capture of key information for prospective capture of key information,” Malone explains. “But to do that, you’ve got to get the information and it has to be rigorous.”

Other Anomalies

Furthermore, as noted by Weinstein, if you release a vaccine under emergency use — because you say there’s an unprecedented health emergency and there are no other options, therefore it’s worth taking a larger than normal risk — then you still would not give it to people who are at no or low risk of the disease in question.

This would include children, teens and healthy individuals under the age of 40, at bare minimum. Children appear naturally immune against COVID-19¹⁰ and have been shown to not be disease vectors,¹¹ and people under 40 have an infection fatality ratio of just 0.01%.¹² That means their chances of survival is 99.99%, which is about as good as it gets.

Pregnant women would also be excluded as they are a high-risk category for any experimentation, and anyone who has recovered from COVID would be excluded as they now have natural immunity and have no need for a vaccine whatsoever. In fact, a recent Cleveland Clinic study^13,14 found people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days prior to vaccination reaped no additional benefit from the jabs.

Yet all of these incredibly low-risk groups are urged and even inappropriately incentivized to get vaccinated, and this too is anomalous behavior. Part of the risk-benefit analysis is not only the risk of serious outcomes and death from the disease, but also the availability of alternative treatments, and here we have the third massive anomaly.

We’ve seen a clear suppression of information showing that there are not just one but several effective remedies that could reduce the risk of COVID-19 to a number of cohorts down to virtually zero. Examples include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both of which have been safely used for decades in many millions of people around the world.

The precautionary principle dictates that as long as a drug or treatment strategy doesn’t do harm, even if the positive effect may be small, it should be used until better data or better treatments becomes available. This is the logic they used with masks (even though the data overwhelmingly showed no statistical benefit and there are a number of potential harms).

But when it comes to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they suppressed the use of these drugs even though they are extremely safe when used in the appropriate doses and have been shown to work really well in many dozens of studies. As noted by Kirsch in his article:¹⁵

“Repurposed drugs [such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin] are safer and more effective than the current vaccines. In general, early treatment with an effective protocol reduces your risk of dying by more than 100X so instead of 600,000 deaths, we’d have fewer than 6,000 deaths. NOTE: The vaccine has already killed over 6,000 people and that’s from the vaccine alone (and doesn’t count any breakthrough deaths).”

Doctors are also being muzzled and their warnings suppressed and censored. Dr. Charles Hoffe has administered Moderna’s COVID-19 “vaccine” to 900 of his patients. Three are now permanently disabled and one has died. After writing an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, in which he stated that he’s “been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment,”¹⁶ his hospital privileges were yanked.

Bioethics Laws Are Clearly Being Broken

In a May 30, 2021, essay,¹⁷ Malone reviewed the importance of informed consent, rightly concluding that censorship makes it so that informed consent simply cannot be given. Informed consent isn’t just a nice idea or an ideal. It is the law, both nationally and internationally. The current vaccine push also violates bioethical principles in general.

“By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me,” Malone writes.

“Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals? 

We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should — no must — be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me …

The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.

In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.¹⁸ There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,¹⁹ which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

Lines Have Been Crossed That Must Never Be Crossed

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,²⁰ cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the whole earth, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone:²¹

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Again, if your schedule allows, I sincerely hope you take the time to listen to Weinstein’s interview with Malone and Kirsch. Yes, it is very long — about 3 ½ hours — but they are all astute in their observations, which makes for an enlightening conversation. And remember to read and widely share Kirsch’s article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?”²²https://articles.mercola.com/sites/mercola/special-content/nvic-conference.aspx?cid_medium=email

Catholic Democrats Lecture The Bishops June 21, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a letter by Catholic Democrats directed at the bishops: Seems like everyone is lecturing the bishops these days. The latest to do so are 59 Democrats who identify as Catholics. Leading the charge is Rep. Rosa DeLauro. On June 18, she issued a “Statement of Principles” that chastises the bishops for addressing the issue of Catholic public figures who reject core Catholic moral teachings; 73% of the bishops voted to consider a document on the suitability of these self-identified Catholics to receive Holy Communion. DeLauro has a long history of telling the bishops what to do. In 2006, she issued a “Statement of Principles,” signed by 55 self-identified Catholic Democrats, saying that one can be a Catholic in good standing and promote abortion rights. In 2007, she was one of 18 self-professed Catholic Democrats to criticize Pope Benedict XVI on this subject. In 2015, she led a contingent of 93 self-identified Catholic Democrats telling Pope Francis what issues he needs to address when he comes to the United States: the right to life was not among them, but climate change made the cut. In the latest “Statement of Principles,” DeLauro and company say they are proud to be part of the Catholic tradition that “expresses a consistent moral framework for life,” adding that they “agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life.” Yet virtually all the signatories have a pro-abortion voting record. DeLauro has voted for human embryonic stem cell research, a process that involves the killing of nascent human life. She opposes making human cloning for reproduction against the law. She has consistently voted against bans on partial-birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL on pro-abortion legislation. The “Statement of Principles” expresses dismay over poverty, saying what is needed is greater “access to education for all.” Yet DeLauro has voted against requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work. In other words, she wants to keep the poor on the dole instead of enabling them to work themselves out of poverty. She has also voted against every school choice bill ever proposed, making it risible for her to suggest that she wants “access to education for all.” In fact, she voted against reauthorizing the Washington D.C. opportunity scholarship program, the initiative that has worked so well for poor African Americans. DeLauro and her self-identified Catholic Democrats have made their biggest media splash saying how hypocritical it is of the bishops to focus on abortion and not the death penalty, both of which the Catholic Church opposes. Perhaps that is because they are not equal. It is estimated that between 1973 and 2019, 61,628,584 innocent children were killed in their mother’s womb. The number of convicted criminals who were executed during that time was 1,512. Curiously, the “Statement of Principles” encourages “alternatives to abortion.” But why are alternatives needed if abortion does not kill? Is there something lurking inside these pro-abortion self-identified Catholic Democrats that is giving them pause? We need to know what it is, because if they do, in fact, understand that abortion kills innocent human life, they would be getting off easy if the bishops simply denied them Communion.

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Is “Facist-Communist” Biden going to Displace you as happened in Mexico? 

June 21, 2021

Today, the Market Ticker reminded me of what happened in Mexico and caused the illegal immigration explosion when it reported “Oh Look, Now They’re Normalizing Displacing You!”:

Rising real-estate prices are stoking fears that homeownership, long considered a core component of the American dream, is slipping out of reach for low- and moderate-income Americans. That may be so — but a nation of renters is not something to fear. In fact, it’s the opposite. [Atlantic article]

Complete crap…

… Renters have none of this; they are subject to the vagaries of the market and liquification of said market screws them as often as it helps.  A renter who has a stable job and wants to raise kids with some continuity but has the market turned into a casino can and will be forced out at the whim of a landlord or local tax assessor who make it impossible to remain in their home.

There is no possible way to consider this is a public good.

As institutional investors increasingly enter the housing market, however, the incentives begin to shift. Large investors can expand or redevelop their properties themselves, because they benefit from a greater number of overall tenants, even if rents themselves dip.

Baloney…

…  Your landlord can raise the rent each year.  You might not be able to pay.  Then you have to move.

If you have kids, or pets, this becomes a problem.  It is especially a problem with children.

What happens when there are no stable families 20 years on?

Your society collapses, that’s what.

Maybe we should contemplate collapsing them instead. [https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3666824]

Are the illegal immigration, abortion and homosexual agenda created by crony capitalism also called “Facist-Communism”?

The Globalist monopolies and their Socialist friends are behind the recent push for abortion and homosexual “rights” in Mexico. (We know that Bill Gates and other monopolist are behind the US illegal immigration, abortion and homosexual agenda.) 

They are a big reason why there are a shrinking middle class and a shrinking living income for the poor. Poor Mexicans who can’t survive in Mexico are forced to come to the US, which is causing the illegal immigration problems. 

Helen Coster in 2007 reported:

Carlos Slim Helu’s fortune is up almost $20 billion in a year, built amid poverty and resentment in Mexico…

…  Slim, 67, amassed his pile in a nation where per capita income is less than $6,800 a year and half the population lives in poverty. His wealth comes to 6.3% of Mexico’s annual economic output; if Gates had a similar chunk in the U.S., he’d be worth $784 billion. It’s enough to give any populist heartburn…

… As the best-known patriarch among the ruling families that dominate the Mexican economy, he draws the most fire for the distinctly Mexican form of crony capitalism that pervades the national economy. The cement industry is largely controlled by one player–Cemex (nyse: CX – news – people )–and its billionaire chief, Lorenzo Zambrano. Mexico has two national television networks, run by the country’s ruling elite–TV Azteca, run by Ricardo Salinas Pliego; and Grupo Televisa (nyse: TV – news – people ), controlled by Emilio Azcárraga Jean, favorite son of the Azcárraga clan. Even tortillas are a monopoly market, controlled by the González Barrera family’s Gruma, which has a 71% share of sales. In January people protested in the streets of Mexico City after tortilla prices doubled.

“Mexico has a dense, intricate web of connections and personal ties between the government and the business class,” says Denise Dresser, a Slim basher who teaches political science at Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM). “This ends up creating a government that doesn’t defend the public interest, that isn’t willing to go out and regulate in the name of the consumer,” she says. “But it is rather willing to help its friends, its allies and, in some cases, its business partners thrive at the expense of the Mexican people.” [http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0326/134.html?token=MTggSnVuIDIwMDcgMTc6MjM6MzkgKzAwMDA%253D and https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2007/06/are-illegal-immigration-abortion-and.html%5D

Unfortunately, this is what is happening in the US. 

If we don’t want Socialism, we need to fight against crony capitalism also called the “Facist-Communist corporate model.” It is destroying democracy and a fair free market system.  

Is Joe Biden a “Facist-Communist corporate model” dictator?

The American Thinker implied that he is a dictator:

Joe Biden was inaugurated a week ago, and like the dictator his handlers have long yearned to install, his has started out as a cruel administration.  His 22 executive orders so far, more than any other president in history, have already sent tens of thousands of jobs down the drain with coldhearted carelessness.  He stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline with the stroke of his pen.  He has put all those who were working on the border wall out of work.  As all those who opposed his candidacy suspected, he is doing China’s bidding.  Of course he is; the Chinese own him.  Every single person he has appointed to his Cabinet is aligned with China as well.  It is quite likely that Biden has no idea how catastrophic the E.O.s he has apparently signed have already been for blue-collar workers across the country.

Biden’s handlers are leading him around by the nose, putting the words they compose on his teleprompter, which he has difficulty reading.  It took the Obama administration a year to do this much damage.  This crowd, believing they have absolute power in every sense of the phrase, have set about implementing the transformation of the U.S. from a democratic republic to a communist oligarchy.  In a flash, there is no more freedom of speech or assembly.  This new regime is about to make the COVID vaccine mandatory.[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/202/01/one_week_in_biden_administration_shows_its_exquisite_cruelty.html]

Like a Chinese “Facist-Communist corporate model” dictatorship, the Biden/Kamala Harris administration is remaining silent over the outrage against the “billionaire Wall Street Traders” possibly because as the Wall Street Journal said Harris is their girl: “As Kamala Harris Joins Biden Ticket, Wall Street Sighs in Relief.” [https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harris-has-taken-on-wall-street-wall-street-doesnt-seem-to-mind-11597254609 and https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/26/kamala-harris-has-complicated-history-with-wall-street.html]

It appears that the Biden/Harris regime is following the non-free market Chinese model of economic/political dictatorship which The Epoch Times called the “Facist-Communist corporate model.” [https://www.theepochtimes.com/on-the-21st-anniversary-of-the-persecution-of-falun-gong-by-the-chinese-communist-party_3439161.html]

Again, another name for the “Facist-Communist corporate model” is “Crony Capitalism.”

In a piece titled “Kamala Harris: Queen of the Crony Capitalists,” The American Conservative revealed:

By 2012, Harris was already a rising Democratic star and a potential gubernatorial candidate. When she announced that California would receive by far the largest share of the $26 billion during the initial announcement of the National Mortgage Settlement, it signaled her arrival to national politics… 

Michael Hiltzik, a business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, called… the duplicity displayed by Harris and the other state AGs during the settlement negotiations was monumental. The AGs made common cause with big Wall Street firms that were selling the shares of the banks short in the pubic equity markets before each salacious headline appeared in the New York Times…

… Kamala Harris and President Obama refused to prosecute the guilty, but they were happy to use their legal powers to tax the shareholders of the big banks. The pension funds of public employee unions and teachers’ unions paid for Kamala Harris’ political career. There is nothing pro-consumer or even mildly progressive about Kamala Harris. She is the pinup girl of the corrupt corporate crony capitalist state. [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kamala-harris-queen-of-the-crony-capitalists/]

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)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. 

• THE HUMAN PERSON
• SEXUALITY & FAMILY
• POLITICS & LAW
• EDUCATION & CULTURE
• BUSINESS & ECONOMICS

RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC SQUARE, SUNDAY LONG READS

God and Public Reason

JUNE 19, 2021BY R.J. SNELLWho would deny that liberalism is falling apart, that the center is not holding, or that a vindictive and evangelistic progressivism is afoot? If so, the natural law cannot but feel like feeble comfort. Still, some of us are unwilling to reject public reason or the hopefulness of John Courtney Murray, for we never assumed his optimism was naivete. 

Given the current troubles, the wariness many conservatives express about public reason is perhaps unsurprising. Public reason, for starters, sounds Rawlsian, and thus defunct, even if gasping along in certain political science departments unaware their moment has passed. Furthermore, some have concluded that liberalism was a poison pill that duped traditionalists and religious conservatives into a false sense of belonging while slowly corrupting and weakening religion until that moment—perhaps now—when progressivism could aggressively attack and defeat tradition.

We’ve lost, the story goes, or at least lost a whole lot, although we hope to carve out enough space for ourselves to survive until better times. The idea that we might appeal to public reason with which to dialogue with people of good will is naïve, at best, or even complicit, guilty of collaboration with our enemies and cultured despisers in hopes they might leave us alone, acknowledge our rights, or give us a place at the table. Public reason is a sham. It not only doesn’t work, it also asks us to bracket our own language, arguments, authorities, and moral commitments. It asks us to fight with one hand tied behind our back, and then, eventually, it asks us to fight against ourselves and our beliefs.

Prominent thinkers and their youthful epigones proclaim the foolishness of appealing to public reason, expressing disbelief, even contempt, for those holding on to outdated hopes of “the Catholic moment,” “springtimes,” “consensus,” or natural law liberalism. We thought we were advancing by speaking in the patois of liberalism, but we have assimilated, forgotten our own language, and are unarmed just as liberalism turns against us. Increasingly, too, our children were formed in the language of public reason rather than our own language, and have become all but illiterate, no longer knowing, or caring to know, their own traditions.

This account, or something very much like it, is the view of an increasing number of conservatives.

For those, like myself, who when young read John Courtney Murray’s We Hold These Truths with enthusiasm, the current mood is alien and alienating. Certainly I recognize the many intellectual pathologies of the moment: an intolerant and illiberal mood, lack of intellectual diversity, cancel culture, a decadent educational system, widespread confusion about gender, attempts to undo religious freedom, and the entire litany of an aggressive progressivism. Still, despite these trials, some of us (stubbornly) maintain that because the natural law cannot be excised from the human, as that would entail the erasure of the human, there is thus a public reason, as everyone has access to the basic principles of reason and morality. Of course, reason operates within history and social context, and ours is not an especially reasonable time. Still, we can exercise attentiveness, intelligence, reasonability, and responsibility, the root conditions of public reason.

This cannot be denied, for one cannot reject natural law without offering reasons, justifications, evidence, and judgments, thereby demonstrating the ongoing reality of intelligence and its demands. Just as one cannot deny the principle of non-contradiction without utilizing that very principle, so one cannot deny our ability to know the truth without making truth claims and by that very act affirming the possibility and necessity of truth.

In other words, the natural law isn’t going away, for whenever and wherever there are rational beings, there is natural law and public reason. Denying public reason is to deny natural law, which is something of a fool’s errand, unless one denies public reason without giving reasons for doing so, in which case, to be blunt, we need not take those claims seriously, as we need not afford much respect to claims asserting their own irrationality. I consider natural law to be irrefutable, for natural law just is the workings of intelligence as intelligence seeks to understand, seeks to judge the truth, seeks to judge true value, and seeks to live in keeping with those judgments. Insofar as we offer justifications or explanations for those judgments, we provide theories of morality, theories about natural law, and theories about public reason. But natural law is itself the pre-theoretical operations of intelligence at work, and there are not and cannot be intelligent reasons to deny the operations of intelligence. Theories about public reason can be denied without contradiction, but the natural law itself is irrefutable, and natural law grounds public reason.

Hope, Not Naivete

Now, however self-evident the natural law is—and of necessity remains, whatever anyone claims—the conservative hesitation regarding public reason persists, for natural law can seem awfully distant and abstract in the face of the crisis of the moment and the ebbing fortunes of our side, even granting our occasional victories. Who would deny that liberalism is falling apart, that the center is not holding, or that a vindictive and evangelistic progressivism is afoot? If so, the natural law cannot but feel like feeble comfort.

Still, some of us are unwilling to reject public reason or the hopefulness of John Courtney Murray, for we never assumed his optimism was naivete. He, too, knew that natural law liberalism was situated within the vicissitudes of time, history, and the distortions of a disordered age. It’s convenient to caricature Murray, among others, as ignorant of the challenges, but this overlooks Murray’s own recognition of the difficulties within the “contemporary historical moment of world crisis.” Murray knows that by public reason we cannot mean something like what everyone here agrees to, for that would be something like the view of the “tribe” rather than the dictates of intelligence. Instead, he readily acknowledges the presence of barbarism in the West. Our barbarism, however well-dressed, remains a kind of idiocy, or at least in the ancient sense, where “idiot” was the person without the knowledge needed for public life.

For Murray, it is evident that the human now “leads the most organized life that man has ever led in history,” and that the United States is not tending to pluralism so much as a kind of enforced unity. It is, he suggests, not whether we shall have national unity, “but what kind of unity and quality of unity shall we have?” The current progressive demands not only tolerance but also adherence to the new orthodoxy, which Murray indicated long ago was very likely: “the threat today is not cultural disunity; the threat today is rather cultural uniformity and the menace it holds to the distinctness of personality and the distinctness of the religious community within contemporary homogenized culture.”

Furthermore, Murray recognized that religion is sidelined by a false understanding of the separation of Church and State. He predicted that the vacuum left by the enforced absence of religion would be met either by “the mystique of science” and hopes for a “purely technological society,” or by some “political mystique,” which would be an “unclarified concept of freedom” or some reified notion of “democracy.” To be honest, Murray sounds less like a sanguine optimist than a jaded realist in these passages, and his arguments about “unclarified freedom” sound not entirely dissimilar to those who suggest the logic of liberalism results in choice for its own sake or undifferentiated liberty and the mystery of existence.

It is not naivete when Murray nonetheless suggests that a legitimate civil unity must be founded on the rule of law and therefore must be “based on reason.”  Reason is “basic in the creation of the civil community and its civil unity. If, and where, the forces of reason fail, civil unity becomes impossible.” Persuasion based in reason about morals, politics, and law is “the instrument of high politics,” and it is reason which turns us from barbarian to statesmen and political beings. It is “logos” which “lifts our nation above the level of a tribal unity, above the unity of the war-making group.”

Murray, however, knows that barbarism is a possibility, as is tribalism, as is idiocy. The “real enemy,” he suggests, is the idiot who does “not possess the public philosophy, the man who is not master of the knowledge and the skills that underlie the life of the civilized city.” Of course, such failure of knowledge can occur in various ways, but its cause now is, he suggests, “technological secularism,” with its organization and instruments and “techniques of power” that do not, and cannot, explain “the nature of man” or “the nature of true civilization.”

That is, we must understand human nature, the human good, the good life, and the common good, but technological secularism cannot understand such things, is incompetent to understand such things. Instead, reason must be capacious enough to move past technology and science—however capable and praiseworthy in their proper domains. Such is the task and possibility of natural law and the public reason it makes possible by knowing and explaining the human and the human good.

Insofar as we reduce reason to science or to calculation—the ability to count and quantify—we will not understand political ends, and we will be ignorant, idiots.

The Decapitation of Reality

We have, as Murray suggests, reduced reason in this way. Or, in the words of John Finnis, we have experienced a “decapitation of reality,” a decapitation of reason. A central cause of this decapitation is that technological secularism considers the propositions of religion as “inherently incapable of conveying any understanding of, or rational response to, any feature of reality.” Religion might express “deep and passionate commitment,” but is thought not to exhibit “a line of rational inquiry, reflection, and judgment.” According to Finnis, such a view is “lethal to religion” and violates the norms of inquiry, thus decapitating reality and reason.

Natural theology provides reasons to believe in God, and those reasons are not themselves grounded in religion or revelation: “the lines of thought that converge in the conclusion that one should affirm a transcendent cause are lines of thought continuous with all our inquiries, reflections, and judgments in every field of science and rational discourse.” In fact, it is these reflections and ponderings and judgments that are “the perennial root and cause, rather than a consequence, of religious belief.” We have religion because we are intelligent and reasonable beings and seek to understand everything about everything. Note well: we seek to understand, to know the truth about everything, not because we simply wish for consolation or deep and passionate commitments. Religion is grounded in natural questions, including questions about the proper ways to respond to and live in keeping with our knowledge of religion.

Natural law is not dependent upon religion, not derived from religious claims or religious authority, and yet natural law is competent to direct us, by reason, to considerations and knowledge of human nature, purpose, the good, and the politics proportionate to such knowledge. This is public reason, and it is in principle open to the knowledge of every rational person. It is also open to the objections, questions, and counter-arguments of every rational person and is thereby both public and capable of meeting the requirements of a coherent account.

Any insistence that natural law or natural theology should be walled off, or not considered because of its comprehensive claims, is unwarranted, compresses reason to the domain of technological secularism (thus eviscerating public reason, about which technological thought is quite idiotic, in Murray’s sense), and violates the integrity of intellect itself. The intellect has an entirely natural desire to seek to understand everything about everything, and the norms of the intellect are to be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible in our attempt to know and live. These “rationality norms,” in the language of Finnis, “guide us in all our fruitful thinking,” and, moreover, “summon us to affirm the existence and providence of God” so that “we should expect that refusals to make such an affirmation will rest on arguments, or on other considerations, which do not leave reason, including practical reason, intact and undistorted.”

To Have Public Reason, We Must Ask About God

Now, even if one deems Finnis incorrect that reason does affirm the existence of God, reason should still be deemed capable of considering the question of the existence of God as knowable—even if one’s answer is “no, He doesn’t”—and thus belief in God is not subjective, or emotive, or relegated to the domain of mere passionate commitment. Even the atheist should grant that the question of God, and our knowledge of God’s existence or non-existence, is mandated by rationality norms. To refuse the question, or to suggest it so much passion, or to arbitrarily decide that questions of God and religion and morality are somehow forbidden in public, is, by definition and in each instance, to distort and pervert the demands of reason.

That is, public reason requires that we ask about God; to forbid that question, or to sequester it safely to Church but not to statesmanship, does not leave reason intact. To have public reason, we must ask about God.

Now, this claim about the integrity of intellect is made without recourse to the content of religion. To say that questions of religion are demanded by the exigencies of reason, and that reason’s health depends on natural law being granted free rein, is not to assert that the truth claims of religion, let alone this or that religion, are part of public reason. Yet of course they augment and amplify reason.

Technological secularism, it turns out, is quite inadequate to explain the common good, human nature, or human dignity and equality. Lacking such knowledge, a politics dependent on merely technological secularity might be efficient and able to attain its desired ends, but would not be able to justify those ends, and would, of necessity, be unable to know the ends which matter most, such as the meaning and purpose of our liberty, our dignity, our society, our lives. Such a politics might be very good at determining interest rates and how to build roads, but it would be all but incapable of asking about the justice of such things. It and would be forced to conclude such debates by power, even if that power was the will of the majority in keeping with democratic norms. But a majority determined by will, is, nonetheless, a majority determined by power, not reason. Scientific materialism, or any form of reductive thought which brackets or sidelines religion, threatens to derail and “strip away the one aspect of human reality that makes us equals in dignity despite the manifold inequalities between us.

Forbidding ultimate questions, or declaring such questions to be beyond the reach of reason, is a decapitation of reality, and this is “dangerous to individuals and societies.” Religion, generally, as well as sound philosophy reject such decapitation, and religion is thus a friend and support of public reason. Any insistence that religion retreat into the private domain or cloister “insinuates a serious public untruth about the reality in which political communities and their law have their place.” It’s unreasonable to do.

Bringing Reason Home to Itself

As Benedict XVI articulated in his famous Regensburg Address, the restoration of reason is necessitated by overcoming the artificial cribbing and confining of religious questions:

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

Consequently, he calls on people of faith to enter into the dialogue of cultures by insisting on reason, reasoning in public, even though the current situation is such that public reason is gravely damaged insofar as religion is ignored:

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur—this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

Some now judge that religious conservatives’ attempts at public reason resulted in our failure and our assimilation, suggesting it would be better to return to the authority of faith instead of natural law liberalism. They are not wrong to note the irrationality of our moment, but what is needed for statecraft is not the authority of religion as religion. What is needed is religion and the natural law to bring liberalism and the state back to their senses by bringing reason home to itself after a long, and increasingly fruitless, exile.

John Courtney Murray knew this.

About the Author

R.J. SNELL

R.J. Snell is Editor-in-Chief of Public Discourse and Director of Academic Programs at the Witherspoon Institute. Previously, he was for many years Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Philosophy Program at Eastern University and the Templeton Honors College, where he foun… READ MORE