“The true Church is now eclipsed.” —Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80, in a declaration he released today. In the declaration, Viganò, who continues to live quietly in hiding, comments on an upcoming May 6-8 conference to be held in the Vatican (link) on the use of stem cells in medical treatments (link), hosted by a Vatican dicastery (the Pontifical Council for Culture), which will be attended by dozens of influential Americans (here is a complete list, with names and photos). The invitees ranging from rock stars like Joe Perry of Aerosmith to people with prominent political connections, like Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, to model and actress Cindy Crawford, to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been continually in the public eye as a key White House science advisor during the Covid crisis. All are scheduled to come to Rome in early May. The conference organizers does rightly argue in favor of the use of adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells in new medical procedures (because use of embryonic stem cells means the killing of the embryo, that is, abortion, while adult stem cells do not require the killing of an embryo). Yet Viganò argues that, among the speakers and attendees invited, the organizers have included many who are “supporters of abortion, of the use of fetal material in research, of demographic decline, of the pan-sexual LGBT agenda, and last but not least, of the narrative of Covid and the so-called vaccines.” The archbishop argues that this is highly inappropriate at the very heart of the Church. He concludes: “This conference… is the scandalous confirmation of a disturbing departure of the current Hierarchy, and in particular its highest Roman members, from Catholic orthodoxy.”    =====    Letter #16, 2021, Tuesday, April 20: Viganò Declaration     Today, April 20, I received a text from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.    The note contained Viganò’s comments on an upcoming Vatican conference (May 6-18) which has become increasingly controversial since the list of invitees was released a few days ago (link).    ”You may sent out my declaration, if you wish,” the archbishop wrote to me.    The text was also sent to other journalists, and other websites, and it was posted earlier this evening by Lifesitenews here.    (My own website, insidethevatican.com, which suffered a devastating “hack” last week, in which the links to many of the writings of Archbishop Viganò were broken, is still under repair, due to the kind help of several friends.)    Below is the full text of the archbishop’s newest Declaration.

    Note re our website: A friend has put me in touch with a web site programmer who is now working steadily to discover the cause of the recent “hack” of our website, resulting in the breaking of many links to articles posted at InsidetheVatican.com. He is making real progress, and is giving us great hope that all issues will soon be resolved. (We do need support to ensure that we may continue to keep our site secure.) —RM

    Above, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Declarationof Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganòwith regard to the“Fifth International Vatican Conference”April 20, 2021      From May 6-8, 2021, the fifth International Vatican Conference will take place, entitled Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul. Unite to Prevent & Unite to Cure. A Global Health Care Initiative: How Innovation and Novel Delivery Systems Improve Human Health. The event is being hosted by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Cura Foundation, the Science and Faith Foundation, and the Stem for Life Foundation [link].    Michael Haynes of LifeSiteNews has reported (here) on the topics to be addressed and the participants, including the infamous Anthony Fauci, whose scandalous conflicts of interest did not prevent him from taking over the management of the pandemic in the United States; Chelsea Clinton, a follower of the Church of Satan and a staunch abortion advocate; the New Age guru Deepak Chopra; Dame Jane Goodall, environmentalist and chimpanzee expert; the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna; representatives of Big Tech; and a whole slew of abortionists, Malthusians, and globalists known to the general public.    The conference has recruited five prominent journalists to be moderators, who are exclusively from left-wing media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS and Forbes.    This Conference — along with the Council for Inclusive Capitalism of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Global Compact on Education, and the inter-religious Pantheon to be held in June in Astana, Kazakhstan — is the umpteenth scandalous confirmation of a disturbing departure of the current Hierarchy, and in particular its highest Roman members, from Catholic orthodoxy.    The Holy See has deliberately renounced the supernatural mission of the Church, making itself the servant of the New World Order and Masonic globalism in an antichristic counter-magisterium.    The same Roman Dicasteries, occupied by people ideologically aligned with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and protected and promoted by him, now continue unrestrained in their implacable work of demolishing Faith, Morals, ecclesiastical discipline, and monastic and religious life, in an effort as vain as it is unprecedented to transform the Bride of Christ into a philanthropic association enslaved to the Strong Powers.    The result is the super-imposition over the true Church of a sect of heretical and depraved Modernists who are intent on legitimizing adultery, sodomy, abortion, euthanasia, idolatry, and any perversion of the intellect and will.    The true Church is now eclipsed, denied and discredited by her very Pastors, betrayed even by the one who occupies the highest Throne.    The fact that the deep Church has managed to elect its own member so as to carry out this infernal plan in agreement with the deep state is no longer a mere suspicion, but a phenomenon which it is now essential to ask questions about and shed light on.    The submission of the Cathedra veritatis [“See (or Throne) of Truth] to the interests of the Masonic elite is manifesting itself in all its evidence, in the deafening silence of the Sacred Pastors and in the bewilderment of the People of God, who have been abandoned to themselves.     Further demonstration of this degenerate libido serviendi [“desire for serving”] of the Vatican towards the globalist ideology is the choice of speakers to give testimonials and lectures: supporters of abortion, of the use of fetal material in research, of demographic decline, of the pan-sexual LGBT agenda, and last but not least, of the narrative of Covid and the so-called vaccines.    Cardinal Ravasi, the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is certainly one of the leading representatives of the deep Church and Modernist progressivism, as well as an advocate of dialogue with the infamous Masonic sect and a promoter of the famous Courtyard of the Gentiles. It is therefore not surprising that included among the organizers of the event is the Stem for Life Foundation [link], which proudly defines itself as “a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization focused on creating a movement to accelerate development of cell therapies.”     On closer inspection, the sectarianism and partisanship of the Vatican Conference are made evident by the topic it addresses, the conclusions it seeks to draw, its participants, and its sponsors.    Even the image chosen to promote the Conference is extremely eloquent: a close-up of Michelangelo’s fresco of Creation on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, in which the hand of God the Father reaches out towards the hand of Adam, but with both hands covered by disposable surgical gloves, recalling the regulations of the new “health liturgy” and implying that even the Lord Himself might spread the virus.    In this sacrilegious representation, the order of Creation is subverted into therapeutic anti-creation, in which man saves himself and becomes the mad author of his own health “redemption.”    Instead of the purifying laver of Baptism, the Covid religion proposes the vaccine, the bearer of disabilities and death, as the only means of salvation. Instead of Faith in the Revelation of God, we find superstition and the irrational assent to precepts that have nothing scientific about them, with rites and liturgies that mimic true Religion in a sacrilegious parody.    This choice of imagery has an aberrant and blasphemous ring to it, because it uses a well-known and evocative image to insinuate and promote a false and tendentious narrative that says that in the presence of a seasonal flu, whose virus has still not been isolated according to Koch’s postulates (here) and that can be effectively cured using existing treatments, it is necessary to administer vaccines that are admitted to be ineffective and that are still in the experimentation phase, with unknown side-effects, and whose producers have obtained a criminal shield of immunity for their distribution.     The victims immolated on the altar of the health Moloch, from children dismembered in the third month of pregnancy in order to produce the gene serum to the thousands of people who have been killed or maimed, do not stop the infernal machine of Big Pharma, and it is to be feared that there will be a resurgence of the phenomenon over the next few months.    One wonders if Bergoglio’s zeal for the dissemination of the gene serum is not also motivated by base economic reasons, as compensation for the losses suffered by the Vatican and the Dioceses following the lockdown and the collapse of attendance by the faithful at Mass and the Sacraments.     On the other hand, if Rome’s silence about the violation of human and religious rights in China has been paid for by the Beijing dictatorship with substantial prebends, nothing prevents the replication of this scheme on a large scale in exchange for the Vatican’s promotion of the vaccines.    The Conference will obviously take great care not to mention even indirectly the perennial teaching of the Magisterium on moral and doctrinal questions of the greatest importance.    Conversely, the sycophantic praise of the worldly mentality and the prevailing ideology will be the only voice, along with the amorphous ecumenical repertoire inspired by the New Age.     I note that in 2003 the same Pontifical Council for Culture condemned yoga meditation and, more generally, New Age thought as being incompatible with the Catholic faith.    According to the Vatican document, New Age thought “shares with a number of internationally influential groups the goal of superseding or transcending particular religions in order to create space for a universal religion which could unite humanity. Closely related to this is a very concerted effort on the part of many institutions to invent a Global Ethic, an ethical framework which would reflect the global nature of contemporary culture, economics and politics. Further, the politicization of ecological questions certainly colors the whole question of the Gaia hypothesis or worship of mother earth” (2.5).     It goes without saying that the pagan ceremonies with which Saint Peter’s Basilica was profaned in honor of the pachamama idol fit perfectly into that “politicization of ecological questions” denounced by the 2003 Vatican document, and which today is instead promoted sine glossa [“without gloss,” that is, without any statement taking any distance from the agenda] by the so-called Bergoglian magisterium, beginning with Laudato Sì and Fratelli Tutti.    At La Salette, Our Lady warned us: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”    It will not be the Holy Church, indefectible by the promises of Christ, that will lose the Faith: it will be the sect that occupies the See of Most Blessed Peter and which today we see propagating the anti-gospel of the New World Order.    It is no longer possible to remain silent, because today our silence would make us accomplices of the enemies of God and of the human race.    Millions of faithful are disgusted by the countless scandals of the Pastors, by the betrayal of their mission, by the desertion of those who by Holy Orders are called to bear witness to the Holy Gospel and not to support the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist.    I beg my Brothers in the Episcopate, priests, religious, and in a particular way the faithful laity who see themselves being betrayed by the Hierarchy, to raise their voices so as to express with a spirit of true obedience to Our Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, a firm and courageous denunciation of this apostasy and its authors.     I invite everyone to pray that the Divine Majesty may be moved to compassion and intervene in our aid.    May the Most Holy Virgin, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata (the Song of Songs (6:3, 6:10) [“terrible as an army in battle array”], intercede before the Throne of God, compensating with Her merits for the unworthiness of Her children who invoke Her with the glorious title of Auxilium Christianorum [“Help of Christians.”]    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop     20 April 2021    Feria Tertia infra Hebdomadam II post Octavam Paschae

Eeyore’s Cabinet: DroughtTo balance Optimism, Inc., I offer occasional gloomy reflections on these revolutionary times.  By: Victor Davis Hanson //  Private Papers April 11, 2021 California did OK in March with rain and snow. It seemed for a brief moment as if the ongoing drought might end. Temperatures were below normal. The 6-7 feet of new snow in the Sierra offered hope. We thought there would be more storms, more of such “March miracles”. Then nada. Not a cloud followed during the last month. Temperatures returned to normal. The snow is all but melted. The rain never returned. There are rarely “April miracle” storms. A new administration in Washington greenlighted rather than resisted Gavin Newsom’s radically green agenda of envisioning snowmelt as a way to restore 19th-century California rivers and the delta—and not so much as water for irrigation, lake recreation, and hydroelectric power. So farmers will pump 24/7 for the next year. Their costs will soar. The water table will continue to drop. The public will ignore the slight increase in food prices—small compared to the gas and housing inflation. And we will get one year closer to The Reckoning. That day to come is when millions of farmed acres below Stockton will go out of production. The water deliveries of the California Water Project will be assigned solely to suburban sprawl. And the West Side will return to that of my youth, where tumble weeds, coyotes, sparse grazing, and Valley Fever were its trademarks. The central Eastern Side where I live persists due to its proximity to the Sierra, the 19th-century delivery systems from the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, and its centuries of stored water in natural aquifers. But increased population, diversions of river water to the sea, and the end to third-tier reservoir construction to trap flood waters in wet years have conspired to curtail deliveries. So everyone here now pumps too. The curious 4-inch well in the yard—140 years old—went dry 5 years ago at 50 feet. The “new” house well my grandfather drilled in the 1960s at 120 feet began sputtering and pumping sand 4 years ago, as I had kept dropping the bowls to 60, 80, and finally 100 feet.  Four years ago I said “no mas”, and drilled a 440-foot, gravel-pack, 8-inch well overkill, and set the bowls at 150 feet. The water table is somewhere around 100 feet and dropping 3-5 feet a year.  You get the picture: A growing California. More claims on its water. More green restrictions of the use of mountain run-off. Refusals to build reservoirs. We are reaching the limits of water conservation with computerized new water-saving drip systems. Something has to give.  The state believes it doesn’t need the middle classes. Farming is passé. Silicon Valley and its 5-trillion-dollars in market capitalization and the upper, upper professional classes will pay the necessary taxes.  Family farmers have mostly disappeared in the state. Farms themselves will too in 20 years, at least in the western Central Valley.  The population knows nothing about how it gets its food or why it is so cheap—in the manner of its ignorance of where its gasoline and heating and air conditioning derive. The progressive classes are going to have a Rendezvous soon with reality. The enemy is not “conservatives” but truth, nature, and the age of old struggle to live one more day.

DECLARATION 

By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò With regard to the “FIFTH INTERNATIONAL VATICAN CONFERENCE”

From May 6-8, 2021, the fifth International Vatican Conference will take place, entitled “Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul. Unite to Prevent & Unite to Cure. A Global Health Care Initiative: How Innovation and Novel Delivery Systems Improve Human Health.” The event is being hosted by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Cura Foundation, the Science and Faith Foundation, and Stem for Life.

Michael Haynes of LifeSiteNews has reported on the topics to be addressed and the participants, including the infamous Anthony Fauci, whose scandalous conflicts of interest did not prevent him from taking over the management of the pandemic in the United States; Chelsea Clinton, a follower of the Church of Satan and a staunch abortion advocate; the New Age guru Deepak Chopra; Dame Jane Goodall, environmentalist and chimpanzee expert; the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna; representatives of Big Tech; and a whole slew of abortionists, Malthusians, and globalists known to the general public. The conference has recruited five prominent journalists to be moderators, who are exclusively from left-wing media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS and Forbes.

This Conference – along with the Council for Inclusive Capitalism of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Global Compact on Education, and the inter-religious Pantheon to be held in June in Astana, Kazakhstan – is the umpteenth scandalous confirmation of a disturbing departure of the current Hierarchy, and in particular its highest Roman members, from Catholic orthodoxy. The Holy See has deliberately renounced the supernatural mission of the Church, making itself the servant of the New World Order and Masonic globalism in an antichristic counter-magisterium.

The same Roman Dicasteries, occupied by people ideologically aligned with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and protected and promoted by him, now continue unrestrained in their implacable work of demolishing Faith, Morals, ecclesiastical discipline, and monastic and religious life, in an effort as vain as it is unprecedented to transform the Bride of Christ into a philanthropic association enslaved to the Strong Powers. The result is the super-imposition over the true Church of a sect of heretical and depraved Modernists who are intent on legitimizing adultery, sodomy, abortion, euthanasia, idolatry, and any perversion of the intellect and will. The true Church is now eclipsed, denied and discredited by her very Pastors, betrayed even by the one who occupies the highest Throne.

The fact that the deep church has managed to elect its own member so as to carry out this infernal plan in agreement with the deep state is no longer a mere suspicion, but a phenomenon which it is now essential to ask questions about and shed light on. The submission of the Cathedra veritatis to the interests of the Masonic elite is manifesting itself in all its evidence, in the deafening silence of the Sacred Pastors and in the bewilderment of the People of God, who have been abandoned to themselves.

Further demonstration of this degenerate libido serviendi of the Vatican towards the globalist ideology is the choice of speakers to give testimonials and lectures: supporters of abortion, of the use of fetal material in research, of demographic decline, of the pan-sexual LGBT agenda, and last but not least, of the narrative of Covid and the so-called vaccines. Cardinal Ravasi, the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is certainly one of the leading representatives of the deep church and Modernist progressivism, as well as an advocate of dialogue with the infamous Masonic sect and a promoter of the famous Courtyard of the Gentiles. It is therefore not surprising that included among the organizers of the event is the Stem for Life Foundation, which proudly defines itself as “a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization focused on creating a movement to accelerate development of cell therapies.”

On closer inspection, the sectarianism and partisanship of the Vatican Conference are made evident by the topic it addresses, the conclusions it seeks to draw, its participants, and its sponsors. Even the image chosen to promote the Conference is extremely eloquent: a close-up of Michelangelo’s fresco of Creation on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, in which the hand of God the Father reaches out towards the hand of Adam, but with both hands covered by disposable surgical gloves, recalling the regulations of the new “health liturgy” and implying that even the Lord Himself might spread the virus.

In this sacrilegious representation, the order of Creation is subverted into therapeutic anti-creation, in which man saves himself and becomes the mad author of his own health “redemption.” Instead of the purifying laver of Baptism, the Covid religion proposes the vaccine, the bearer of disabilities and death, as the only means of salvation. Instead of Faith in the Revelation of God, we find superstition and the irrational assent to precepts that have nothing scientific about them, with rites and liturgies that mimic true Religion in a sacrilegious parody.

This choice of imagery has an aberrant and blasphemous ring to it, because it uses a well-known and evocative image to insinuate and promote a false and tendentious narrative that says that in the presence of a seasonal flu, whose virus has still not been isolated according to Koch’s postulates (here) and that can be effectively cured using existing treatments, it is necessary to administer vaccines that are admitted to be ineffective and that are still in the experimentation phase, with unknown side-effects, and whose producers have obtained a criminal shield of immunity for their distribution.

The victims immolated on the altar of the health Moloch, from children dismembered in the third month of pregnancy in order to produce the gene serum to the thousands of people who have been killed or maimed, do not stop the infernal machine of Big Pharma, and it is to be feared that there will be a resurgence of the phenomenon over the next few months.

One wonders if Bergoglio’s zeal for the dissemination of the gene serum is not also motivated by base economic reasons, as compensation for the losses suffered by the Vatican and the Dioceses following the lockdown and the collapse of attendance by the faithful at Mass and the Sacraments. On the other hand, if Rome’s silence about the violation of human and religious rights in China has been paid for by the Beijing dictatorship with substantial prebends, nothing prevents the replication of this scheme on a large scale in exchange for the Vatican’s promotion of the vaccines.

The Conference will obviously take great care not to mention even indirectly the perennial teaching of the Magisterium on moral and doctrinal questions of the greatest importance. Conversely, the sycophantic praise of the worldly mentality and the prevailing ideology will be the only voice, along with the amorphous ecumenical repertoire inspired by the New Age.

I note that in 2003 the same Pontifical Council for Culture condemned yoga meditation and, more generally, New Age thought as being incompatible with the Catholic faith. According to the Vatican document, New Age thought “shares with a number of internationally influential groups the goal of superseding or transcending particular religions in order to create space for a universal religion which could unite humanity. Closely related to this is a very concerted effort on the part of many institutions to invent a Global Ethic, an ethical framework which would reflect the global nature of contemporary culture, economics and politics. Further, the politicization of ecological questions certainly colors the whole question of the Gaia hypothesis or worship of mother earth” (2.5).

It goes without saying that the pagan ceremonies with which Saint Peter’s Basilica was profaned in honor of the pachamama idol fit perfectly into that “politicization of ecological questions” denounced by the 2003 Vatican document, and which today is instead promoted sine glossa by the so-called Bergoglian magisterium, beginning with Laudato Sì and Fratelli Tutti.

At La Salette, Our Lady warned us: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” It will not be the Holy Church, indefectible by the promises of Christ, that will lose the Faith: it will be the sect that occupies the See of Most Blessed Peter and which today we see propagating the anti-gospel of the New World Order. It is no longer possible to remain silent, because today our silence would make us accomplices of the enemies of God and of the human race. Millions of faithful are disgusted by the countless scandals of the Pastors, by the betrayal of their mission, by the desertion of those who by Holy Orders are called to bear witness to the Holy Gospel and not to support the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist.

I beg my Brothers in the Episcopate, priests, religious, and in a particular way the faithful laity who see themselves being betrayed by the Hierarchy, to raise their voices so as to express with a spirit of true obedience to Our Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, a firm and courageous denunciation of this apostasy and its authors.

I invite everyone to pray that the Divine Majesty may be moved to compassion and intervene in our aid. May the Most Holy Virgin, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata, intercede before the Throne of God, compensating with Her merits for the unworthiness of Her children who invoke Her with the glorious title of Auxilium Christianorum.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

20 April 2021
Feria Tertia infra Hebdomadam II
post Octavam Paschae

Monday, April 19, 2021

The Biden-Bergoglio Border

Written by  Elizabeth Yore

• Crisis at our Southern Border

Who could forget when Papa Bergoglio opined on the vile nature of border walls!

It’s an opportune time to assess the judgment and discernment of the pontiff now that America has open borders.  After 3 months of the Biden Administration, it’s open season on the border—the Biden-Bergoglio Border. Joe Biden granted Pope Bergoglio’s wish of a borderless southern U.S. border. The bloody imprimatur of Jorge Bergoglio is dripping all over the Rio Grande River.

Pope Francis maliciously weighed in on the 2016 Presidential election hoping to sway American Catholic votes away from Donald Trump. Was he following orders from John Podesta?  First, let’s recall those classic verbal Bergoglian bombs lobbed at Donald Trump’s policy to secure the border.

“A person who only thinks about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,“~~Pope Francis, February 18, 2016

Nevertheless, Trump forged ahead to build the 452 miles of border wall along the U.S. Mexico border. Trump was unfazed by the Argentine’s name calling. America’s border wall was under construction.

Bergoglio continued his verbal drumbeat against the Trump border wall during the U.S. 2020 election. The political pope could not resist more partisan pronouncements.

On May 29, 2019 Pope Francis  attacked President Donald Trump over his initiative to build a wall along the US Southern Border, slamming Trump’s policy move as “cruel”and “very sad.”  

The notoriously nasty Bergoglio eagerly mouthed the Left’s phony talking points:

“Separating children from their parents goes against natural law, and those Christians … you can’t do it. It is cruel.” 

“It is among the greatest of cruelties. And to defend what? 

“Territory, or the economy of a country or who knows what.” 

~~Pope Francis, May 29, 2019

Finally, the ultimate ad hominem attack by the self styled Pope of Mercy described  President Trump as “a Herod,” comparing him to the murderous King Herod who massacred innocent children while trying to find and kill the baby Jesus. Francis castigated Trump for separating families at the border while permitting drugs to flow into America.

“In other parts there are walls that even separate children from parents. Herod comes to mind,” Francis said. “Yet for drugs, there’s no wall to keep them out.” ~~ Pope Francis, Thailand Visit, Dec. 5, 2019

It’s time to take a moral inventory of the Biden-Bergoglio Open Border Policy.

Let’s analyze whether the Biden’s open border policy is Christian as Francis urged.

1.           Within a month of the new Biden border policy, news from the border crossings estimate that 80% of the women and girls who cross over the border have been raped or sexually assaulted by the dangerous cartels. So is this the papal concept of CHRISTIAN? Sounds like the Biden/Bergoglio border policy is “the greatest of cruelties.”

2.           The brutal reality of this dangerous migration journey is captured in the heartbreaking story of the little Mexican girl who lost her voice while screaming over her barbaric gang rape by the cartels. Is this the Pope of Mercy’s concept of Christian?

3.           In the month of March, over 19,000 unaccompanied minor children crossed the border without parent or guardian.   This open border reality is to use Francis’ words, “cruel and sad.” 

4.           Violent Drug Cartels are “renting” children without their parents  to cross the borders to carry drugs and to submit to human trafficking. Wasn’t Pope Francis an expert on human trafficking? Didn’t the Francis Vatican hold several Human Trafficking conferences? Didn’t he realize that open borders facilitate human trafficking?

5.           The Customs and Border Patrol are reporting that convicted murderers and sex offenders are crossing the border in record numbers. This open border reality reflects the murderous regime of “Herod.”

6.           Two Yemeni Men who are on the Terror Watch List were arrested trying to cross the southern border. That open border policy of Biden/Bergoglio is very dangerous for innocent Americans.

7.           CBP reports that there has been a record number of sex offenders crossing the border. “Again, open borders are “cruel and very sad” for innocent children and women.

8.           The Mexican and Guatemalan Presidents are blaming Joe Biden for confusing messages about border crossing which is causing a human rights crisis at the border.  Lay this “cruel and very sad” crisis at the feet of Biden and Bergoglio.

9.           Law enforcement warns that there is a human trafficking crisis at the border. Any expert on human trafficking would know the danger of open unregulated borders.

10.         There has been a 230% increase in border crossings causing a huge human rights crisis and an inability to handle the exploding numbers of children. “Herod comes to mind.”

11.         Migrant parents have no idea where their children are. Those children who crossed the border alone are often missing in the system. “Herod comes to mind.”

The old morale cautions that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Case in point, a pope who resides protected behind a 37 foot high, three kilometer long wall, which was built from 848 to 852 to keep out the Saracens (read: Muslims) which encircles the Vatican City might want to pause before he criticizes walls.

What’s good for the Holy See is apparently not good for the United States. Frankly, that’s unchristian.
___________

Elizabeth Yore is an international child protection attorney who has extensive experience in investigating human trafficking cases.

For more on the Crisis at the Border:https://www.youtube.com/embed/sLukNT-0CE0?wmode=transparentPublished inHeadline News Around the World

CFN BLOG

DR. MAIKE HICKSON

Prominent Italian Theologian Defends Abp. Viganò’s Critique of Vatican II: “Take Off the Dogma and You Will Unleash the Antichrist”

 Dr. Maike Hickson

July 29, 2020

Prominent Italian Professor Lauds Archbishop Viganò and Discusses Doctrinal Confusion Since Vatican II

Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli, a prominent Italian theologian, has now joined the Vatican II debate and strongly endorses Archbishop Viganò’s critique of the Council and its ambiguities and manipulations. Quoting Father Schillebeeckx and Cardinal Suenens, the professor shows how key figures intentionally inserted ambiguous formulations and used the term “pastoral Council” in order to relax the Church’s doctrinal teachings. But he warns us: “Take off the Dogma and you will unleash the Antichrist”

Who is Professor Radaelli?

Professor Radaelli is a Catholic philosopher, theologian, and disciple of the Swiss intellectual Romano Amerio (1905-1997), “one of the greatest traditionalist Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century” according to Sandro Magister. As such, he is a strong critic of the Second Vatican Council and of the post-conciliar Popes and their attempts at eliding over doctrinal changes that were introduced at Vatican II. In 2003, the well-respected Vatican Correspondent Sandro Magister endorsed one of his books in which he criticized ecumenism and did not spare criticizing the Popes who promoted it. Magister then called it  “important because it enriches the body of theological criticism of modern Catholicism written by intellectually sound ‘traditionalist’ authors.” Such eminent and learned people as the recently-deceased Professor Antonio Livi, the also recently-deceased philosopher Roger Scruton, Bishop Mario Olivero, the theologian Brunero Gherardini, and the journalists Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro have collaborated with Radaelli in his book projects.

On July 4, Radaelli published a statement on Aldo Maria Valli’s website, strongly endorsing Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s recent interventions pointing to the problems of Vatican II, its organization and its documents. He also signed the recently published July 15 Open Letterof gratitude to Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider for raising this debate.

Background to Professor Radaelli’s Intervention

The Open Letter was issued after Archbishop Viganò had gratefully and approvingly responded to two interventions concerning the Second Vatican Council of Bishop Athanasius Schneider from early June with a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statementabout some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. In this document, he also stated that it would be better if this Council were to be “forgotten.” He then answered interview questions from the Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26. In a response to LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks Vatican II should be forgotten by saying he considers the Council to be valid but manipulated. Finally, on July 6, this Italian prelate and former papal nuncio in Washington, D.C. responded to a critique by the Italian journalist Sandro Magister, who claimed that he was on the “brink of schism.” “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church,” Viganò wrote in reply.

Catholic Family News considers it important to now have Radaelli’s reaction to the interventions of Archbishop Viganò also presented to the English-speaking public, due to his prominence and learning. Therefore, we are publishing for the first time an English translation of Professor Radaelli’s July 4 statement with the permission of Aldo Maria Valli. Moreover, Radaelli was so kind to send us a longer, explanatory text of his position which will be published separately in due course. 

There are No Liberals or Conservatives, Only Heretics or Catholics

In light of his own critique, this Italian theologian is very grateful to Archbishop Viganò for putting his finger into the wound of the post-conciliar Church in order to heal it. He refuses to accept the terms “liberals” and “conservatives” with regard to the Church’s discourse, saying that “today, the same abuse goes on in the scrimmage about the holy stance taken by Archbishop Viganò. Indeed, it is time to stop with the unfair and malicious practice of applying such exclusively, merely political categories to the Church, which is an exclusively, solely religious society!”

For Radaelli, there are only two categories in the Church: either one is a “heretic” or one is a Christian who remains “faithful to the Dogma and to the true pre-Montinian liturgy.” For him, Viganò’s position is “the only rightful stance to take,” unlike those Popes who are “unfaithful to Dogma.”

We Need Metaphysics, Not Hermeneutics

Furthermore, Radaelli discusses the term “hermeneutics,” which for him is “another trick that we have to tolerate” and that is linked with “hermeneutics” and “historicism” as promoted by Joseph Ratzinger. “Let us take again in our hands the metaphysics,” the theologian writes, “the only Catholic science, the only concrete methodology, the only rational philosophy,” and this after “almost sixty years of a dark hermeneutical and historical night.”

He points out in light of this approach of interpreting the Council documents in light of Tradition – the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity” – that previous Councils did not even need to be interpreted: “None of the documents, the decrees and the anathemas produced by the twenty ecumenical Councils of the Church,” he writes, “has ever needed to be sifted by anybody’s interpretations, since the Dogma doesn’t allow it, being too clear to be ‘interpreted.’”

He opposes and calls “muddled” Pope Benedict XVI’s words given during a December 2005 speech about “the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us.”

States Radaelli: “The ‘hermeneutics of reform in the continuity’ is, scanning the terms one by one: first, just an interpretation (=hermeneutics); second, of discontinuity (=reform); third, in the orthodoxy (=continuity). It is therefore an opinion, a working hypothesis, it is nothing more than an opinion about a vague concept that pretends to be in continuity with the sound development of the Dogma while, at the same time, reforming it, thus wishing to be at the same time its very opposite, and the total sum of everything, that is, to be something and its absolute contrary, however without letting it be noticed, without unveiling the conflict, the contradiction, the harshest war — up to their ultimate essence — between both things.”

The Italian professor asks which interpretation, then, should be the authoritative one – the Pope’s (not spoken ex cathedra) or someone else’s? “Here is where the armies fight against each other already since sixty years ago,” he comments, thus pointing out that, as long as a document needs interpretation, there will be a continuous battle over how to interpret it. We could add here that this is exactly the case with many documents issued by Pope Francis now, the latest example being his post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia.

Radaelli also shows that two key figures of the Vatican Council – Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Cardinal Leo Suenens – both clearly worked for ambiguity and vagueness. Schillebeeckx admitted that they intentionally used “diplomatic” language in order to “draw out the conclusions” later, while Suenens was the one convincing Pope John XXIII to use the term “pastoral” Council, rather than “dogmatic” one. “The gimmick consists in never utilizing the dogmatic level of the Magisterium, but always and only the ‘pastoral’ level, in order not to be forced to pronounce an infallible teaching,” which “must be perfectly true and certain and, because of its divine indefectibility, doesn’t allow any ambiguity – since ambiguity is a defect.”

Take Off Dogma and You Will Unleash the Antichrist

For Professor Radaelli, Dogma is the protection against the Antichrist, therefore an ambiguous teaching will make to Church vulnerable to the influence of the enemy. He says that the “dogmatic level” (as presented by the Pope or by him together with a Council) is the “true and only Katéchon [the one who will be eventually removed before the full manifestation of the Antichrist (see 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7)] that can bridle the Antichrist. The Katéchon is the Dogma.”

“Take off Dogma and you will unleash the Antichrist,” the author concludes.

But this removing of Dogma might also be taking place by way of silencing it, not necessarily openly contradicting it, continues the professor. “You need only to hide it … then pretend that it isn’t there and use the pastoral level of the Magisterium with daredevil impudence, as if the pastoral level didn’t entirely depend on the Dogma and hadn’t the precise moral obligation to always be – as best as it can – coherent and absolutely consequent to it, as it has always happened throughout the centuries,” he then says, adding: “to unleash the Antichrist you need only this de facto evaporation of the Dogma, this ‘not taking into account’.”

Here, Radaelli speaks of an “abnormal and empty modernist building which the Church has no turned herself into,” and he praises Viganò for “showing the courage to address the problem which had been narcocized by almost sixty years of shameful snares elaborated first of all by the highest pastors of the Church, by those who held the highest responsibilities.”

*****

Editor’s Note: Below is the full text of Professor Radaelli’s text translated into English. As our readers will notice, Professor Radaelli is a man of clear words and strong statements. He shows himself a critic not only of the Second Vatican Council’s ambiguities but also of the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes who have been involved in allowing the ambiguities of that Council – which had been consciously placed there by some prominent Modernists – to continue to affect the Church’s life and teachings. Here, he does not spare Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and also challenges Cardinal Walter Brandmüller for their attempts at defending a “hermeneutic of continuity” with regard to the Council, as if there had not taken place a shift of the Church’s teaching and doctrine. We at CFN have never shied away from strong words that ring with truth. Longtime CFN editor John Vennari (RIP) was often criticized for referring to the Second Vatican Council as the “best council the Protestants ever had.” Although we must manifest the proper respect due to the office held by those in authority, that due respect does not prevent us from naming things as they are. Dr. Radaelli’s style may be a bit jarring to some readers, but that should not detract from the merits of his arguments.

Letters from Babylon

I say:

It’s sixty years since the abuse of the terms “liberals” and “conservatives” began being used to cheat the public: Today, the same abuse goes on in the scrimmage about the holy stance taken by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Indeed, it’s time to stop with the unfair and malicious practice of applying such exclusively, merely political categories to the Church, which is an exquisitely, solely religious society!

It’s just about time to stop it, because this is only a sinful way to hide the fact that they want us to believe that the filth is gold and the gold is filth. An authentic nonsense.

Whenever, in the IV century, the Arian heretics were defined as “liberals” while those who remained faithful to the Dogma were said to be “conservative”?

Whenever, in the XVI century, the Lutheran-Calvinist heretics were called “liberals” while those who were faithful to the laws of God taught by the holy Roman Church were labelled as “conservatives”?

Just talking.

P. S.: Oh, I almost forgot:

Monsignor Viganò’s Strong Shoulder Shove to Roncalli-Ratzinger’s Maxi-Snare.

Just cut it out! It’s time to stop with these miserable cunnings that turn reality upside-down making the heretics look nice and making the firm and holy saints who are faithful to God look like nefarious troglodytes: the so-called “liberals” are nothing but those who summarize in their perverse doctrine a jumble of the worst heresies that merged into Modernism; by contrast, the so-called “conservatives” are simply those Christians who remain faithful to the Dogma and to the true and holy pre-Montinian liturgy at the risk of falling out with the world, Popes included.

Even in the contemporary case of the strong and severe stance taken by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the Second Vatican Council — which is actually the only rightful stance to take — he is not to be labelled as a “conservative”, but is rather to be considered a Christian who is faithful to the Dogma, while the Popes who called, led, defended, and still defend that perverse Assembly are not to be deemed good and valiant “liberals”, but rather Popes who are unfaithful to the Dogma, in this specific case precisely modernist and neo-modernist Popes.

The question is that these fake categories must be replaced by the true ones. Enough with the subterfuges: leave the heresy to the heretics and the truth to the faithful.

The only acceptable categories in the context of a doctrinal debate inside the Roman Catholic Church are “heretic” for those who don’t adhere to the Dogma and to the pastoral Magistry [i.e., Magisterium – Ed.] intimately connected to it, as it is taught by the dogmatic Magistry, and “Catholic” for those who adhere to it.

There are no more categories. And those used today are mere falsehood.

That’s not all: stop talking about “hermeneutics”, too, another trick that we have to tolerate as if it were our duty to hang from the lips of the Frankfurt School like good teacher’s pets of Pope Ratzinger, who made of hermeneutics and historicism his Polar stars: let’s take again in our hands the metaphysics, the only Catholic science, the only concrete methodology, the only rational philosophy, so that we may again and finally witness firsthand — after almost sixty years of a dark hermeneutical and historicist night — the true reality of the Church, before we will land face first on it because of the contemporary, horrible reality that plagues the Church: it will be too late then.

None of the documents, the decrees, and the anathemas produced by the twenty ecumenical Councils of the Church has ever needed to be sifted by anybody’s interpretations, since the Dogma doesn’t allow it, being too clear to be “interpreted”, no matter what Cardinal Brandmüller may affirm about it.

Furthermore, it’s about time to stop talking of the much more muddled, convoluted and twisted hermeneutics mentioned by Pope Ratzinger in his utterly grievous Address to the Roman Curia of 22 December 2005: «the hermeneutic of reform — he remarked in those reflections of his —, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church.»

Please somebody give as a gift to the much august Author — who is more and more in danger — of such a convoluted conceptualism and invite him to read as soon as possible The Emperor’s New Clothes, a beautiful fairy tale by Andersen that could suggest to him the reasons why he should end his decades-long effort — whose insistence is rather worthy of much better goals — to produce, one after the other, only soft feathery pillows whose unique utility consists in allowing him to lay his head — which is profoundly thirsty for peace — and his exhausted elbows on them, so to be able to sleep quietly in the middle of the uproar of the world, so much for the lightning bolts of Ez 13:18, the holy Word of God.

The “hermeneutics of reform in the continuity” is, scanning the terms one by one: first, just an interpretation (=hermeneutics); second, of discontinuity (=reform); third, in the orthodoxy (=continuity).

It is therefore an opinion, a working hypothesis, it is nothing more than an opinion about a vague concept that pretends to be in continuity with the sound development of the Dogma while, at the same time, reforming it, thus wishing to be at the same time its very opposite, and the total sum of everything, that is, to be something and its absolute contrary, however without letting it be noticed, without unveiling the conflict, the contradiction, the harshest war — up to their ultimate essence — between both things.

Ratzinger! Oh, Ratzinger! When will you stop tangling yourself up in piles of white, soft feathers only in order not to see the blood of Redemption that flows around you and so — who knows? — maybe even save yourself?

That Address to the Roman Curia is way too much famous, it is quoted again and again, many hosannas are sung to it because in its simplicity — hermeneutics of continuity YES, hermeneutics of rupture NO — it seems to solve all the impervious, long-standing problems generated and never solved by the Second Vatican Council. However, no one penetrates beyond the surface of those lines in which their most august Author allows the perpetration of a very serious crime, a crime as serious as to cut at the root all the power of the very famous scheme that outsmarts everybody: continuity, yes; rupture, no, hermeneutically speaking, of course, that is, always in a Rashomon-style way, as in Kurosawa’s movie, in which four hermeneuts interpret the same episode reaching four irreconcilable conclusions: interpretation is reality.

Alright, but which interpretation? Why should the Pope’s interpretation — since he is not talking ex cathedra — be truer than mine?

That’s the point. Here is where the armies fight against each other already since sixty years ago. Right: always walking and fighting on a pile of leaves that hides to the soldiery of Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors and simple faithful — no matter whether they are “liberals” or “conservatives” — the great snare that make them all fall in the one pothole, obligingly, because anyone of them has been well trained by the clerical regime: and I say “anyone” because no one of them manifests the public, necessary opposition which is due — no one except, now, the aforementioned Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

However, why, after the very same Amerio in his Iota Unum — and successively, repeatedly, the undersigned in his own books — pointed out that even the neoterics remorselessly, shamelessly and bluntly admitted it — see Fr. Schillebeeckx, who writes: « Nous l’exprimons d’une façon diplomatique, mais après le Concile nous tirerons les conclusions implicites » (p. Edward Schillebeeckx op, in De Bazuin n. 16, 1965) — why on earth, I ask, does everybody still keep refusing to face the facts and to stop accepting this conciliar maxi-snare of ambiguity?

This is the fraudulent gimmick that the writer denounces since decades, suggested by Cardinal Suenens to the alert, refined and great insight of the so-called “Good Pope” John XXIII, who immediately put it in practice since the formal opening of the Council — conferring to it a merely “pastoral” nature, not at all a “dogmatic” one, as it should have been because of the presence of the Pope — on 11 October 1962: and the gimmick consists in never utilizing the dogmatic level of the Magisterium, but always and only the “pastoral” level, in order not to be forced to pronounce an infallible teaching, which natura sua — by his own nature — must be perfectly true and certain and, because of its divine indefectibility, doesn’t allow any ambiguity — since ambiguity is a defect —, not even an intentional one, thus it doesn’t allow any “interpretation” either.

The dogmatic level, the highest level of teaching, held only by the Pope — or by a Council, but only if it is in union with the Pope — is the true and only Katéchon that can bridle the Antichrist. The Katéchon is the Dogma.

Take off the Dogma and you will unleash the Antichrist.

And it is not even really necessary to take it off — the Dogma: you need only hide it — as the shrewd French Cardinal suggested to the placid Pope from Bergamo — then pretend that it isn’t there and use the pastoral level of the Magisterium with daredevil impudence, as if the pastoral level didn’t entirely depend on the Dogma and hadn’t the precise moral obligation to always be — as best as it can — coherent and absolutely consequent to it, as it has always happened throughout the centuries in the life and therefore in the practice of the holy Magisterium of the Church.

There it is: to unleash the Antichrist you need only this de facto evaporation of the Dogma, this “not taking it into account”, this shrewd “forgetting” — let’s call it this way — which, of course, is completely immoral, sinful, and based on Machiavellianism applied to the Word of God.

A very, very simple and little rule. But a firm one: if, for example, the Pope called a Council to which he denied any faculty to enunciate a locutio ex cathedra, e.g. by prescribing to it the magisterial level called “pastoral”, the definitions that that Pope would put forward in such a Council “would never run the risk” — let’s call it this way — “of being infallibly true”: that’s what Cardinal Suenens and Pope Roncalli wanted to achieve and indeed achieved: “Never to be forced to pronounce infallible truths, but, on the contrary, to be sure to be always allowed to say anything, perhaps even some heresies (provided that they are not noticed, but for this you need only wrap the language in a fog of ambiguity, thank you Schillebeeckx), in any case: first, the Pope will never risk to be accused of formal heresy, that is, of the crime of heresy proper; second, the infallibility Dogma, the Dogma that guarantees exactly that, will never been undermined.”

In order to know every detail about this maxi-snare, I invite the reader to peruse my All’attacco! Cristo vince [Charge! Christ Wins], Aurea Domus Editions, Milan 2019, § 16, pp. 63-7, that can also be ordered from the writer.

This perverse device is the engine, the pivot, the material cause and the efficient cause, the genius absconditus — the hidden demon — of the abnormal and empty modernist building which the Church has now turned herself into, it’s the device without which, then, the Church wouldn’t be such a preagonal ruin as it is, Modernism wouldn’t have succeeded in ousting Truth from the highest Throne and the Bride of Christ would be today more splendid, holy and glorious than ever.

However, in spite of this perverse device — that the writer summarized in the formula “War of the Two Forms”, talking about it and illustrating it in every language since more than ten years — nobody has ever opened a debate, nobody has ever, in any way, at least taken it into account, nobody has ever turned the head at least to look at it in the rear-view mirror.

Today an Archbishop is showing the courage to address the problem, a problem which had been narcotized by almost sixty years of shameful snares elaborated first of all by the highest Pastors of the Church, by those who held the highest responsibilities.

Today, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is not afraid to acknowledge that the Second Vatican Council must be cancelled both in its totality and in each one of its thousands of ambiguities which its advocates resorted to in order to surreptitiously introduce concepts that, if the Council had been opened at the due dogmatic level, not only would have been strongly rejected, but would have also explicitly and even more harshly anathematized.

Enough with the Roncalli-Ratzinger-style maxi-snares. Let the Church come back to her role of unique Polar star of divine salvation by adhering strongly and with absolute resolution to the firm clarity of the Dogma: « Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.» (Mt 5:37)

Enrico Maria Radaelli

International Science and Commonsense Association (ISCA)
Department of Metaphysics of Beauty and Philosophy of Arts,
Research Director and Professor of Formal Gnoseology

Italian original published here.

English translation by Antonio Marcantonio.Archbishop ViganoHermeneutic of ContinuityPope Benedict XVIPope FrancisProfessor RadaelliVatican II

Dr. Maike Hickson

Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland, where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Her work has appeared in American and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.

Eeyore’s Cabinet: DroughtTo balance Optimism, Inc., I offer occasional gloomy reflections on these revolutionary times.  By: Victor Davis Hanson // Private Papers April 11, 2021 RIP MCINTOSH California did OK in March with rain and snow. It seemed for a brief moment as if the ongoing drought might end. Temperatures were below normal. The 6-7 feet of new snow in the Sierra offered hope. We thought there would be more storms, more of such “March miracles”. Then nada. Not a cloud followed during the last month. Temperatures returned to normal. The snow is all but melted. The rain never returned. There are rarely “April miracle” storms. A new administration in Washington greenlighted rather than resisted Gavin Newsom’s radically green agenda of envisioning snowmelt as a way to restore 19th-century California rivers and the delta—and not so much as water for irrigation, lake recreation, and hydroelectric power. So farmers will pump 24/7 for the next year. Their costs will soar. The water table will continue to drop. The public will ignore the slight increase in food prices—small compared to the gas and housing inflation. And we will get one year closer to The Reckoning. That day to come is when millions of farmed acres below Stockton will go out of production. The water deliveries of the California Water Project will be assigned solely to suburban sprawl. And the West Side will return to that of my youth, where tumble weeds, coyotes, sparse grazing, and Valley Fever were its trademarks. The central Eastern Side where I live persists due to its proximity to the Sierra, the 19th-century delivery systems from the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, and its centuries of stored water in natural aquifers. But increased population, diversions of river water to the sea, and the end to third-tier reservoir construction to trap flood waters in wet years have conspired to curtail deliveries. So everyone here now pumps too. The curious 4-inch well in the yard—140 years old—went dry 5 years ago at 50 feet. The “new” house well my grandfather drilled in the 1960s at 120 feet began sputtering and pumping sand 4 years ago, as I had kept dropping the bowls to 60, 80, and finally 100 feet.  Four years ago I said “no mas”, and drilled a 440-foot, gravel-pack, 8-inch well overkill, and set the bowls at 150 feet. The water table is somewhere around 100 feet and dropping 3-5 feet a year.  You get the picture: A growing California. More claims on its water. More green restrictions of the use of mountain run-off. Refusals to build reservoirs. We are reaching the limits of water conservation with computerized new water-saving drip systems. Something has to give.  The state believes it doesn’t need the middle classes. Farming is passé. Silicon Valley and its 5-trillion-dollars in market capitalization and the upper, upper professional classes will pay the necessary taxes.  Family farmers have mostly disappeared in the state. Farms themselves will too in 20 years, at least in the western Central Valley.  The population knows nothing about how it gets its food or why it is so cheap—in the manner of its ignorance of where its gasoline and heating and air conditioning derive. The progressive classes are going to have a Rendezvous soon with reality. The enemy is not “conservatives” but truth, nature, and the age of old struggle to live one more day.

                                                      Easter Saturday, April 10, 2021

Thanks go to Brother Bugnolo at FromRome for making this video available on his website!   Our world has entered a new kind of warfare and here is what we can do about it.  

https://www.fromrome.info/2021/01/31/dr-lee-merit-coronavirus-vaccines-are-lethal/

We are at war!  This is a war even though you may not know you are under attack.  This 30 min video (recorded on Jan 15, 2021) is titled “Dr. Lee Merit: The Vaxx is Preparing the World for a Mass Death Event.”  Dr. Merit gives a clear explanation of how COVID is a biologically manipulated bio-weapon to trample our basic human rights.  Many people will die.  It is imperative that we  become better informed!

I took a few notes to help you know what is in this video in case it is taken down.  Dr. Merritt has top credentials in the medical field. She received her medical degree from the University of Rochester, is past president of American Academy for Physicians and Surgeons, was a spinal surgeon and studied bio-weapons at military institutions.  The coronavirus-19 is a bio-weapon.  The enemy picked this because it is an invisible missal.  It is very transmissible but rather benign and comparable to other coronaviruses.  Then came the vaccines.  The warhead is the spike protein from the mRNA vaccines.  It gets into all the tissues of our body.

At the beginning many people were dying in Lombardy, in New York City, etc.  The virus did kill many initially.  But as it passes through the hosts it became less deadly.

Now the big picture.  As soon as it came out the virus became the vehicle for creating fear—the economy tanks, and the masks cause problems, no in-person schooling.  When Dr. Merit was shut down she “studied.”  And now she wants to tell us the real story.

Why push vaccines when we have treatments that really do work?  If we don’t let them hide the treatments then the vaccine industry profits would go to zero.  If have a treatment then they cannot terrorize us.  That is why we are not hearing more about the treatments.

The first COVID vaccine was rolled out for distribution days before the FDA said they were going to approve it.  It does not stop transmission.  At best, in this first phase it may weaken how seriously we get it.  What are the long term effects?  Next year after getting the vaccine many problems are predicted.

How did this happen? We have funded Chinese scientists to work in our labs as well as others who are part of the Medical Technocracy.  MY ADDENDUM:  The US government funded Anthony Fauci/NIAID and Peter Daszak/Eco Health Alliance (i.e.  Daszak who transferred money Fauci gave his shell organization called Eco Health Alliance to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology where the gain-of-function research funding, i.e. making the virus more deadly, was continued after being stopped in the US by Pres. Trump).

Vaccines are not a permanent solution. They are not even a solution. They are part of a take down of America!

To take vaccines we should be allowed to have informed consent.  When the insert on the vaccine which shows all of its risks is presented on the internet it is taken down.  Hardly informed consent.

Do we  hear that we can improve our immune system through natural supplements?  Why does CDC not drill down on the small percentage of people who are really getting sick and dying? How can we help them?  The CDC did not look at this.  The Indonesians did!  They discovered VITAMIN D — get it!

If you look at history of vaccines, this is an experimental biologic.  With true vaccines you are given you a portion of the pathogen made weaker.  Own immune system recognizes it.  Our own body deals with it naturally.

We are not dealing with a true vaccine. This is a programming exercise putting new spike proteins into your body.  The current manufacturers of the mRNA vaccines are programming mRNA to tell our body to produce certain things.  A piece of mRNA creates a piece of the spike protein in every cell of the body.  The problem is this.  In animal studies (ferrets, cats), all the animals died.  They died from “immune enhancement” — now called anti-body development enhancement (ADE).  First the animals get the vaccine and do fine.  Next, the scientists challenged the animal with the virus which the vaccine is supposed to immunize against.  Then, like a trojan horse comes an attack on every part of the body.

This is the perfect bio weapon.  The virus comes in without being seen. The  Coronavirus hooks onto the spike protein left by the vaccine.   DELAYED DEATH.  Here’s how it works. The health providers give you part 1 (spike protein).  Accidentally or otherwise you become become exposed in part 2 to the virus the vaccine was supposed to attack, but instead it has the opposite effect).

Treatments we have – hydroxychloroquine and more recently ivamectin.  Also, become familiar with a list of supplements that help defend us.

We need to have a COVID prevention/defend home kit of Vitamin D, Vitamin C, NAC, Zinc, Selenium and Quercetin.

Dr. Merit calls on doctors to rethink their position about being silent.  This is an attack on people who are deemed not worthy of living.  Information is out there.  American Frontline Doctors, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, and many other organizations are speaking out.

(MY ADDENDUM — See a March 31, 2021 article by Sandy Szwarc in The Remnant titled “Doctors Abandoning Medical Ethics for Covid – 19 Money.”)

To get out of the pandemic turn off the TV, take off your mask and go visit your relatives.  Please share this video.


Prayers to the Holy Ghost.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, PhD (in Economics)
lifetree.org
LifeTree Home

The Proof is in the Packing By: Judd Garrett Objectivity is the Objective April 11, 2021 Rip McIntosh One does not have to look any further than the Democrats desire to pack the Supreme Court as evidence that massive voter fraud was committed in the 2020 election. The only reason for packing the Supreme Court is to gain absolute power. Adding two or four more justices to the Court does not make the court fairer and more just, does not help the Justices make more Constitutionally sound rulings. Nine justices is not an inadequate number. Cases are not being judged insufficiently due to a lack of justices on the Court. The only reason why the left wants to pack the Court is to swing its philosophical balance of power in their direction so they can ram their legislative agenda through unimpeded from Constitutional restraint. They want to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for their agenda, and they do not care if doing so destroys the integrity of the court in the process, turning it into a kangaroo court like the courts in banana republics, or totalitarian countries.  In 1983, when Ronald Reagan was President, Joe Biden believed that packing the Supreme Court would be “a terrible, terrible mistake.” He went on to say that Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court, “put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body in this country: the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” Joe Biden, himself, believed that packing the court undermines the court’s integrity, but now here he is creating a commission to study packing the Supreme Court, because he knows it will give him unprecedented power. So, how is packing the Supreme Court evidence of voter fraud? Everything the Democrats do is about obtaining power, and they will do anything, destroy anything to get it. They do not care about preserving the integrity of our institutions, like the court or our elections. If an uncorrupt system is getting in the way of them obtaining power, they will corrupt it. That is what they are doing with packing the Supreme Court, and that is what they did during the 2020 election. Removing voter ID, signature match and sending out millions of unrequested mail-in ballots had nothing to do with keeping people safe from Covid. There are no scientific studies concluding that showing a government issued ID or requiring voter’s signatures to match their signature on the voter roll transmits Covid. Yet, they did away with these voter integrity measures on the “emergency” grounds of combatting the transmission of Covid. Why does a state like New York have strict voter ID laws supported by Democrats? Because, it is a solid blue state which will consistently vote for Democratic Presidents and Senators, so they want their elections to be fair, free from fraud.  Democrats’ push to eliminate the filibuster is further proof that they are willing to destroy every and any institution in this country to obtain power. In 2005, when the Republicans had all the power, Joe Biden believed ending the filibuster would be harmful to the country. He said, “It is not only a bad idea, it upsets the constitutional design and it disservices the country. No longer would the Senate be that different kind of legislative body that the Founders intended. No longer would the Senate be the saucer to cool the passions of the immediate majority.” But now, since ending the filibuster would give Biden and the Democrats absolute power, Biden has changed his mind. He no longer cares that it “disservices the country.” All he cares about is power. Democrats were not talking about removing the filibuster when they used it 327 times against the Republicans and President Trump. It is only now when they have all the power that they want to give the majority absolute power, and strip the remaining meager power from the minority, turning the United States into one party rule. Nothing the Democrats want to do makes the United States better, stronger, fairer, more honest, more just. It is only about their power. Opening our southern border and allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into this country every month is bad for our country, it is bad for the countries these people are leaving, it is bad for American citizens, and it is bad, even deadly, for the illegal immigrants, themselves. But it is good for the Democrats and their unquenchable thirst for power, so they facilitate it. This massive influx of illegal immigrants, coupled with amnesty will add millions of Democrat voters in red states like Texas insuring not only Democrat permanent power but also the destruction of this country. Everyone knows, political censorship violates the principles of free speech that is a vital necessity to a functioning democracy, but the Democrats will not do anything to stop the political censorship by Facebook and Twitter because it helps them obtain and maintain political power. They do not care if censorship is bad for the country, if it gives them more power, they will support it. The destruction and carnage from the riots of 2020 in our major cities were devastating to our country, but Democrats like Kamala Harris, Michelle Obama and Joe Biden supported, and even abetted the riots because the violence and instability increased the Democrats chances in the election. Democrats have no problem with destroying the Supreme Court through court packing, destroying the Senate through eliminating the filibuster, destroying our cities through riots, why would anyone think they would have qualms about destroying the integrity of the vote, especially since they removed measures protecting the vote on fraudulent grounds? They cannot legitimately win the type of power they need to push through their unpopular agenda, so, rather than representing the will of the people like honest politicians do to win votes, they choose to change, or more accurately fundamentally transform the country, which means fundamentally corrupt our institutions like the Supreme Court, the legislative process, and the vote. They are not adjusting to the will of the people and the country; they are bending the country to fit their agenda.  Once these systems become corrupted, they become almost impossible to uncorrupt, especially if the corruption is the root of the powerful’s power. But who wants to be in charge of a corrupt government? Who wants to be put in power through corruption? What they do not realize is that they will end up like those corrupt emperors of Rome during its decline, like Nero and Caligula, to whom the history books are not very kind. Democrats only want power, power, and more power. They act as if they are not human, as if they are immune to temptations of power that afflict the rest of us mortals; greed, selfishness, ego. The blind arrogance and utter lack of self-awareness is staggering. Why is it that it is always the least enlightened who believe and act as if they are the most enlightened? They look down on the rest of us as deplorable bigots clinging to our guns and bibles. No wonder they think they can override, and negate our votes. They believe their corruption and fraud is saving the country from ourselves. It is all delusional arrogance. The 2021 Democrats are the very reason why the founders crafted and ratified our Constitution the way they did with limits of politicians, and created a system of separate and balanced power. They knew the likes of them were coming in our country’s future. That’s why they created the system designed to protect the country and our institutions from politicians like the Democrats who are willing to destroy our system of government to enhance their power. Eventually, the Democrats will want to destroy the Constitution because it will be the last thing standing in their way from ultimate power, the ultimate power that will destroy our country.

The Joe Biden Who Never WasBiden is proving the Biden he always was—as incompetent as Jimmy Carter, without the latter’s probity. He may prove as corrupt as Bill Clinton yet without his animal energy.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

April 18, 2021(emphasis added)

Rip McIntosh

These are the most radical first three months of a presidency since 1933, the most divisive—and certainly the most dangerous. And its catalyst is the myth of ol’ Joe from Scranton who has unleashed furies and hatreds never quite seen in modern American history.
“Woke” Joe BidenAt an age when most long ago embraced a consistent political belief, late septuagenarian Joe Biden suddenly reinvented himself as our first woke president. That is ironic in so many ways because Joe’s past is a wasteland of racialist condescension and prejudicial gaffes. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, he positioned himself as the workingman’s Democrat from Delaware (or, as Biden once beamed, “We [Delawareans] were on the South’s side in the Civil War.”). In truth, he exuded chauvinism well beyond that of his constituents. 
Biden’s concocted working-man schtick meant praising former segregationists of the Senate like Robert Byrd and James O. Eastland.He would talk tough about inner-city predators, even as he pontificated about his support for tough drug sentencing. Kamala Harris, without any political traction other than her race and gender, once predicated her unimpressive and early aborted presidential campaign on the single strategy of knocking Joe out of the primaries for his purported innate racism that hurt victims of color, such as herself, the deprived child of two Ph.Ds. 
Add up what Joe has said about race and it is hard to find any major political figure of either party who has been so overtly race-obsessed. His corny Corn Pop fables positioned Joe as the white working-class everyman. Indeed, he took on supposed gang bangers from the ghetto, standing them down, no less, with his own custom-cut chain. 
On the paternalistic flip side, Joe kindly allowed young African-Americans at poolside the chance to stroke their heroic lifeguard’s shimmering golden leg hairs, or so he tells us. 
As vice president, Biden condescendingly warned an audience of successful black professionals that a rather meek Mitt Romney had the superhuman ability to “put y’all back in chains.” 
Indeed, he warned them in a fake black patois, reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s grating “I don’t feel no ways tired.” In Bidenland, donut shops are full of Indians and the sum total of Barack Obama is the fact he was supposedly “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
We assume then that Joe was suggesting that Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson could barely speak, were unkempt, and perhaps ugly in comparison to Barack Obama. The latter, other than his diction, fastidiousness, and appearance, apparently to Joe had not much to offer the country. 
It is hard to accept that these crazy musings were only the stuff of pre-woke Joe Biden. Last week in a joint press conference with the Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Biden true to form referred to the 29-old Masters golf champion Hideki Matsuyama as the “Japanese boy,” as in “You got a Japanese boy coming over here . . .”
For the hyper-Left, one-strike-and-you’re-out, take-no-prisoners, media, racialist—and now president—Biden presents a dilemma: hammer him for what would have imploded other presidents? Stay mute and keep taking the hit as journalistic hypocrites and sycophants? Leak and whisper that he is to be excused on the grounds he is non-compos mentis? Or leak and whisper it’s past time proof that Kamala Harris must now assume her birthright?
Joe, remember, was quarantined in the 2020 campaign. His rare communiques were prepped and edited by a cloister of handlers. No matter: even then he still managed to go full racist Joe and write off two media hosts with racial put-downs—one with that now progressive signature, condescending inner-city slang, as he announced “You ain’t black.” 
When asked about his own cognitive issues, Biden snapped back at African-American CBS reporter Erroll Barrett: “ That’s like saying you, before you got on this program, you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not. What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?” 
The irony, of course, is that his African-American interlocutor fit neither of Joe’s stereotypes, but his own son, drug-addled Hunter, most surely did.
Joe has been exempt from any scrutiny because he is metamorphosed into a hard leftist and thus was still useful, despite Barack Obama’s earlier prescient warning to peers, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up.” Obama later repeated with emphasis that straight talk with fatherly advice about a possible Biden presidential run in 2020: “You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t.” But he really did, despite clairvoyant Barack’s fear of something like Biden’s first public 100 days. 
Biden ironically benefits from the cognitive issues that surround his public appearances as though he were an equal-opportunity, reckless loudmouth, without regard to race or gender. For example, on the campaign trail, Biden called a young New Hampshire co-ed at a town hall a “lying dog-faced pony soldier.” He ridiculed an Iowa town hall white male questioner as a “damn liar” and “fat.” If a politician is crazy enough to smear strangers as liars and obese, then he can say anything, anywhere, anytime to anyone, black or white?
Joe Biden, UniterThe message of the Biden campaign was one-dimensional: good ol’ Joe was the antidote to Trump’s tweets and leaked Oval Office trash talk. He would “unite” us. Yet, there was no proof that Biden was ever an uniter. (Remember his dishonest ad hominem interrogations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork?) When he boasted on two occasions of taking Trump behind the proverbial gym bleachers to beat him up, he was channeling his earlier repertoire of he-man stories of slamming faces into lunch counters and such. 
But by staying incommunicado and absent from the national media’s daily photo-ops, Biden still remained everyman from Scranton. And the media agreed that in comparison to the hard-Left sorry Democratic field—Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke—Biden’s decaying conservative pupa offered possibilities.
If unity is defined as achieving record-low minority unemployment or enhancing the entry-level wages of working Americans by curtailing massive illegal immigration or raising middle-class incomes after years of stagnation, then Biden will not be an uniter. 
Calling opponents Neanderthals, chumps, dregs, and racists, and denigrating those who support modest requirements of presenting an ID to vote with slurs like Jim Crow are not lowering the temperature but vintage Biden.  NeverTrump conventional wisdom that Joe Biden would govern as a moderate four-year caretaker, restoring “decency” to the office and “normal discourse” had no support in anything Joe had said or done in the past. 
Some of us warned that Joe Biden might well become something far more than just a one-term president. Rather than holding off the revolutionary Left for a term, Biden, already a resentful sort, more likely would see his presidency as a chance to be the 21st century’s FDR—and a former underappreciated understudy’s final backhand to Barack Obama who talked of, but never delivered the progressive dream.
Joe is liberated, not shackled, by his age and fragility. Just one term, the chance that he might lose the entire Congress in 2022, the left-wing, unhinged venom of the New Democratic Party—these were never reasons to reach out or find compromise. 
Rather they were urgent goads to accelerate and ram through as many structural changes that would not just move the country leftward now, but become hard to undo in the future—even without a mandate, without a majority in the Senate, without a safe margin in the House, and without an agreeable Supreme Court. The more beat-the-clock extremism now, the more left-wing canonization later.
So far the Uniter is trying to federalize all voting laws to more or less make Election Day an abstraction and to ensure that early and mail-in ballots always have an authentication rate of 99.9 percent. 
He wants to pack the court, admit two new states, end the filibuster, trash the Electoral College, keep the border open, and explore reparations and cash payments to illegal immigrants. “He” of course is also a construct. Biden has outsourced these initiatives to “experts.”
They understand that a president who wishes to be remembered as great for something won’t worry much about the nuts and bolts of the operation. Competent Joe BidenJoe Biden was never stable or steady.Robert Gates notoriously emphasized his ubiquitous ineptitude when he said Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
 A “Biden Plan” usually is a contorted mess (cf. his oversight of “shovel-ready jobs” and “cash for clunkers” in 2009, the latter being a program he now wishes to resurrect). The Biden idea to trisect present-day Iraq was a prescription for a new Middle East Balkans. He gave loud support for interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya—only to orphan them when the news cycle pronounced them lost. 
In just 100 days, Biden is determined to destroy the prior calm of the Middle East by resurrecting a near-comatose Iran, as he yearns to reenter the Iran deal and all the appendages of that disaster, such as empowerment for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. 
Yes, Putin is a thug, but a peculiar sort of one with over 7,000 nuclear weapons. So when Biden nonchalantly calls him a killer and announces he “will pay a price,” such thugs do two things: they get angry at being called what they are, and they investigate whether their offender has any clout to back up the invective.  
Putin assumes that Biden, our “point man” on Ukraine from 2009-2016, was familiarly corrupt, given his braggadocio about firing a prosecutor who looked too closely at his shady family’s concessions in Ukraine. Biden was in charge during the “reset” years, when the United States forbade the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, following the Russian aggrandizement in Eastern Ukraine. 
Biden was a status quo advocate of the pre-COVID China policy: urge Wall Street and corporate America to partner with Beijing, outsource and offshore, and claim the resulting bicoastal elite financial bonanzas would “democratize” China. Chinese state syndicators surely would soon emulate real capitalists in action and absorb their Davos wokeness and corporate panache. The richer China got, and the poorer the deplorables became, then the more China would become Carmel or Martha’s Vineyard, or Tom Friedman’s utopian Solar City and high-speed rail heaven. 
Upright BidenBiden dropped out of two prior presidential runs for being accused of past plagiarism and biographical misrepresentation. When it was disclosed that Hunter Biden’s laptop turned up with reference to the “Big Guy’s” 10 percent cut, and when a participant in the discussions of the corrupt Biden family syndicate’s machinations over how to divide its quid pro quo spoils explained the scam on national television, Biden swore the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”
A corrupt media and a more conniving social media monopoly squashed the story. As insurance, Biden wheeled out dozens of compromised former national security mediocrities to swear he was a victim of “the Russians.” And now Hunter himself admits that he cannot quite deny that the laptop was his. That Biden slur of “the Russians did it” became even more resonant than the earlier affronts that Trump appeased them as they put bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan or he colluded with Putin to rig the 2016 election. 
Historians will one day argue over the moment when the #MeToo hysteria and deductive “believe women” mantra faded out. Was it the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation zoo, Christine Blasey Ford’s demonstrable sworn untruths, and the deification of the felonious Michael Avenatti? Or was it the assertions of Tara Reade that candidate Biden had sexually assaulted her years earlier with impunity?  
But whereas no one, despite Avenatti’s antics, could point to a Kavanaugh pattern of teen sexual rough-housing, Biden himself had been caught both on tape and by the public accusations of a number of women, that he is too handsy, that he hugs too hard, that he blows in the ears of the resistant, that he seems to swarm underage girls and to violate the private space of women without their permission—all to be written off as the perennially overly affectionate Uncle of a simpler, happier time gone by.
In his earlier caterpillar stage, Biden trumped Hillary Clinton’s “super predators” of the inner-city, with his own “racial jungle” talk. Now in his final moth manifestation, he retains the same racial slurs but has inversed his targets as he damns the new purveyors of “Jim Crow.” What stays the same is the signature Biden venom and the hyperbole—and his habit of projecting onto others his own tribalism.
Biden is proving the Biden he always was—as incompetent as Jimmy Carter, without the latter’s probity. He may prove as corrupt as Bill Clinton yet without his animal energy. His narcissism matches that of Al Gore and John Kerry, but without even their thin veneer of assumed authority. He is a greater racial divider than Barack Obama but without Obama’s smooth contextualization. 
And the media that hated Trump and hyped his coarseness, worships Biden’s as it masks his far greater crudity.

Will Wokeness Finally Cannibalize Itself?Part 2

By: Victor Davis Hanson

April 19, 2021 

Rip McIntosh

Part 2: The First Russian-Under-Every-Bed Frenzy (prior to Adam Schiff)
The Depression and the January 1, 1942 alliance with the Soviet Union had peaked American communist membership at 75,000. The treasonous Alger Hiss mentality in the State Department—the Soviets would be progressive postwar partners while the British imperialists faded and were thankfully forced to relinquish their colonialist empire—occasionally led to outright espionage (the Rosenbergs really were guilty), leading to the loss of atomic secrets, a preference for Mao over Chang Kai-shek, and excusing the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe. In the midst of the public confusions that we had won the war over Hitler but might have lost the peace to Stalin, Democrat Harry Truman ordered loyalty oaths and tried to root out from government communists “sympathizers” and party members. 
By 1950, a less aristocratic Robespierre-like figure, Sen. Joe McCarthy began accusing hundreds of elites in government and entertainment of communist party membership and betrayal of their own country. He was occasionally not wrong, but never distinguished youthful naïveté from mature subversion of America, or whether it was or should be illegal to be a communist or express communist sympathies. 
No matter. After some of Hollywood’s best were sidelined and blacklisted (not all of them sympathetic characters), McCarthy enjoyed overwhelming public support, including that of William F. Buckley, and from time to time an embarrassed but silent Dwight Eisenhower. The sweep of communism abroad into Asia, Africa, and Latin America fueled McCarthy’s conspiracy charges.
Then bloated with his lists of “traitors,” McCarthy went after George Marshall, the U.S. Army, the CIA, and the likes of Lee Grant, Orson Welles, and Edward G. Robinson. His own drinking, bombast, and sidekick Roy Cohn (a closet homosexual who hounded dozens of others on sensational charges of closet homosexuality) turned off the American middle: McCarthy’s accusations grew, but his proof thinned.  
By 1954, Ike, the grandees of the Republican Party and the establishment had become fervent anti-communists and now found McCarthy a dangerous liability. Edward R. Murrow—with sometimes TV audiences of 60 million—demolished McCarthy in a famous “See It Now” in-depth report: “A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy.” While Murrow had his own demons, no one could deny his courage and resonance and he quickly turned public opinion against McCarthy.
Soon Joe met his own Waterloo in the 1954 Senate hearings when Army counsel Joseph Welch (who himself had no problem in making a homophobic slur/joke about Roy Cohn) destroyed McCarthy’s credibility as he finally famously uttered, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” Applause followed. 
And the Red Scare began to end.