THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Does Francis want to add Ecological Pachamama Sins for his new Updated Francis Confession?

March 18, 2021

Does Francis want to add sins contributing to climate change to his “ecological sin” list in his Ecological Pachamama Catechism for the new updated Francis confession?

Before we get to the updated confession we need to ask: 

Is climate change real science?

Professor Nir Shaviv, who is the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained at the ScienceBits website “How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted“:

In 2008 I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans in sync with the 11-year solar cycle is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected from just changes in the total solar output. Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so called radiative forcing on the climate.

Since solar activity significantly increased over the 20th century, a significant fraction of the warming should be then attributed to the sun, and because the overall change in the radiative forcing due to CO2 and solar activity is much larger, climate sensitivity should be on the low side (about 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling).

In the decade following the publication of the above, not only was the paper uncontested, more data, this time from satellites, confirmed the large variations associated with solar activity. In light of this hard data, it should be evident by now that a large part of the warming is not human, and that future warming from any given emission scenario will be much smaller.

Alas, because the climate community developed a blind spot to any evidence that should raise a red flag, such as the aforementioned examples or the much smaller tropospheric warming over the past two decades than models predicted, the rest of the public sees a very distorted view of climate change — a shaky scientific picture that is full of inconsistencies became one of certain calamity…

…  Evidence for warming doesn’t tell us what caused the warming, and any time someone has to appeal to the so called 97 percent consensus he or she is doing so because his or her scientific arguments are not strong enough. Science is not a democracy.” [http://www.sciencebits.com/GWPseudoScience]

If you still think climate change is scientific and a sin here is ‘How to do a Francis Confession for your Francis Pachamama Sins using the Updated Pachamama Catechism”:

Last year, Francis really said he wanted to add “ecological sin” to the Catechism according to LifeSiteNews:

“‘We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ‘ecological sin’ against our common home, because a duty is at stake,’ Pope Francis told his hearers. The Argentinian pontiff made the remark in a speech he gave today to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-proposes-adding-ecological-sin-against-common-home-to-catechism ]

I think his focus on only ecological sin is too narrow. He needs to bring everyone up to speed on all the new and improved Francis-sins for the Francis-confessional.

Here is what that new and improved Francis-confession at the Francis-confessional might sound like:

Bless me Father-Mother for I have sinned. It has been about four years since my last Francis-confession.

I feel so bad because I failed to prostrate before the ecological pagan Pachamama idols in the Francis Vatican gardens.

I allowed myself in enter into the near occasion of sin against the Francis dogma of global warming by viewing on the internet websites not controlled by the liberal establishment, I am so ashamed, then I fall into sin by reading independent scientists’ evidence against Francis’s prediction that climate change doomday is near.

This caused me to fall into the sin of doubting Francis’s teaching that only a one-world government can save the planet from global warming doomsday.

I was very faithful to the Francis teaching on adulterers going to to Communion, but one week ago I broke up with my adulterous partner and still went to Communion without trying to reunite with my partner in the adulterous relationship.

Finally, Father-Mother, and I don’t know if you or Francis can forgive me – it may be the Francis unforgivable sin – I had a moment of weakness when I doubted the George Soros and Francis gospel on unlimited mass immigration… and, I… I can hardly say it… I voted for Donald Trump.

 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. 

NEWS

TAKE NOTE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC ATTITUDE OF “CATHOLIC MEDIA” ON POPE BENEDICT XVI

MARCH 17, 2021EDITOR15 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The news broke nearly 21 hours  ago, but no Catholic news outlet in the English speaking world — to my knowledge — has picked up the story. There is universal studious silence.

Compare this to the totally discounted fabricated and alleged interview of Massimo Franco of the Italian Daily, La Stampa, which made claims that were entirely debunked days later by all the leading Vaticanista: Socci, Tosatti, Cionci etc.. That story, when first published, was reprinted immediately by ALL leading “Catholic” news outlets in the USA and the United Kingdom.

What is the difference?

The Massimo Franco story claimed that Bergoglio is the pope and that Benedict accepts that.

But the story which broke yesterday, quotes Pope Benedict XVI naming an Ambassador, in a nact which is strictly papal and monarchical and proves that Benedict considers himself the sole reigning pontiff.

Now ask yourselves if the “Catholic” media who ignored yesterday’s story are credible, impartial, honest or even in communion with the Church, of if they are rather bought and paid, narrative control, totally in league with Bergoglio’s gay, marxist, globalist, heretical apostate agenda.

By the way, for all you traddies out there, the story which broke yesterday is much more important than a nearly anonymous letter posted on the doors to St. Peter’s Basilica. So what’s with your silence about the former and your foaming at the mouth about the latter?

Here you have it. Take note. This is information suppression, disinformation promotion and narrative control. And it all has a satanic and globalist objective.

Also, to not put too fine a point upon it: if you refuse to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI did this because you refuse to recognize him as the Roman Pontiff, then you need to candidly admit that you are a SCHISMATIC formal and pertinacious, and in virtue of canon 1364, are excommunicated ipso facto for schism. Also in accord with the papa bull,  “Unam Sanctam” of Pope Boniface VIII, you cannot at all be saved, but shall be condemned to the eternal fires of Hell, with unbelievers and heretics of all kinds.

So maybe it is time you cut off all funding to these “Catholic” sites and talking heads who simple ignore the true facts as they come forth?

For myself, I for 6 years thought Bergoglio was the pope, and would have rejoiced to have a clear fact as this to snatch me from the errors I was in. To not have this sentiment is bizarre, and incomprehensible to me, if you are honestly in public disparaging and disapproving of what Bergoglio is doing daily, AND disapproving of it in your heart, why would you be silent in the last 21+ hours about this irrefutable evidencde that Benedict XVI never intended to resign, is the Pope, and is not ashamed to act as such?

Let us keep praying for Pope Benedict XVI. I believe the strong defense of his rights that we have seen in the Italian press in the last 2 weeks has encouraged him to speak out. With stronger moral and spiritual support, I believe his restoration to the Throne of Peter will be soon.

Now it is for us to militate with him! God wills it! Deus Vult!

NEWS

TAKE NOTE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC ATTITUDE OF “CATHOLIC MEDIA” ON POPE BENEDICT XVI

MARCH 17, 2021EDITOR15 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The news broke nearly 21 hours  ago, but no Catholic news outlet in the English speaking world — to my knowledge — has picked up the story. There is universal studious silence.

Compare this to the totally discounted fabricated and alleged interview of Massimo Franco of the Italian Daily, La Stampa, which made claims that were entirely debunked days later by all the leading Vaticanista: Socci, Tosatti, Cionci etc.. That story, when first published, was reprinted immediately by ALL leading “Catholic” news outlets in the USA and the United Kingdom.

What is the difference?

The Massimo Franco story claimed that Bergoglio is the pope and that Benedict accepts that.

But the story which broke yesterday, quotes Pope Benedict XVI naming an Ambassador, in a nact which is strictly papal and monarchical and proves that Benedict considers himself the sole reigning pontiff.

Now ask yourselves if the “Catholic” media who ignored yesterday’s story are credible, impartial, honest or even in communion with the Church, of if they are rather bought and paid, narrative control, totally in league with Bergoglio’s gay, marxist, globalist, heretical apostate agenda.

By the way, for all you traddies out there, the story which broke yesterday is much more important than a nearly anonymous letter posted on the doors to St. Peter’s Basilica. So what’s with your silence about the former and your foaming at the mouth about the latter?

Here you have it. Take note. This is information suppression, disinformation promotion and narrative control. And it all has a satanic and globalist objective.

Also, to not put too fine a point upon it: if you refuse to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI did this because you refuse to recognize him as the Roman Pontiff, then you need to candidly admit that you are a SCHISMATIC formal and pertinacious, and in virtue of canon 1364, are excommunicated ipso facto for schism. Also in accord with the papa bull,  “Unam Sanctam” of Pope Boniface VIII, you cannot at all be saved, but shall be condemned to the eternal fires of Hell, with unbelievers and heretics of all kinds.

So maybe it is time you cut off all funding to these “Catholic” sites and talking heads who simple ignore the true facts as they come forth?

For myself, I for 6 years thought Bergoglio was the pope, and would have rejoiced to have a clear fact as this to snatch me from the errors I was in. To not have this sentiment is bizarre, and incomprehensible to me, if you are honestly in public disparaging and disapproving of what Bergoglio is doing daily, AND disapproving of it in your heart, why would you be silent in the last 21+ hours about this irrefutable evidencde that Benedict XVI never intended to resign, is the Pope, and is not ashamed to act as such?

Let us keep praying for Pope Benedict XVI. I believe the strong defense of his rights that we have seen in the Italian press in the last 2 weeks has encouraged him to speak out. With stronger moral and spiritual support, I believe his restoration to the Throne of Peter will be soon.

Now it is for us to militate with him! God wills it! Deus Vult!

by Edward Peters, JD

By These remarks are occasioned by Cdl. Farrell’s recent musings toward, it seems, admitting the Church’s inability to bless the sacramental marriages of same-sex couples but suggesting the possibility of blessing their non-sacramental or civil marriages (?) but, rather than sort through all that, let’s set out some distinctions crucial to discussions of marriage, sacramental and civil, among Catholics and briefly call attention, once again, to a major factor contributing to the Church’s apparent incoherence in this area.

March 18, 2021

These remarks are occasioned by Cdl. Farrell’s recent musings toward, it seems, admitting the Church’s inability to bless the sacramental marriages of same-sex couples but suggesting the possibility of blessing their non-sacramental or civil marriages (?) but, rather than sort through all that, let’s set out some distinctions crucial to discussions of marriage, sacramental and civil, among Catholics and briefly call attention, once again, to a major factor contributing to the Church’s apparent incoherence in this area.

1. Marriage is an institution that, by natural law (binding on all human beings) and divine revelation (binding on believers), can exist only between one man and one woman. Everything else one says about marriage, no matter who says it, including about the purposes of marriage, the duration of marriage, the religious and/or civil requirements and ceremonies for entering and ending marriage, the sacramentality of certain marriages, some apparent historical anomalies among the foregoing, the question of marriage nullity, everything else about marriage assumes the man-woman relationship.

2. Whenever marriage is entered into between two Christians (not just Catholics, mind), that marriage is not ‘merely’ (if I may put it that way) marriage as understood by natural law—although it is still virtually everything that marriage is by natural law—it is also a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace. What the Church calls “sacramental marriage”, then, is any and every marriage by natural law that is entered into by two Christians, this, whether that baptized man and woman care about the sacramentality of their marriage (as many Catholics do not) or whether they even know about the sacramentality of their marriage (as most Protestants would not).

3. Setting aside Catholics (and Orthodox) for the moment, the great majority of the world’s population (i.e., some 6 billion folks out of nearly 8 billion) can and do enter marriage as set out in natural law—and that is a wonderful and beautiful thing. Long story made short, whenever any man and any woman, each eligible to enter marriage, freely choose to enter it and do so in some publicly-recognizable manner, they are married according to the natural law whereupon the Church simply and happily recognizes that fact. In canonical terms, the Church accords the “presumption of validity” to all such marriages and, if she is ever asked about them (as happens from time to time), she replies that what looks like a marriage—as understood by natural law—is a marriage until proven otherwise.

But here is where an aspect of Catholic canon law starts to confuse the issue.

4 A) The great majority of the world not being Christian (let alone Catholic), canon law has nothing to say about how most of the world enters natural marriage. As long as the couple is eligible for marriage and freely chooses it, it matters not to the Church whether they do so in a religious or civil ceremony or some combination thereof. The great majority of the world enters natural (if we need that adjective), albeit non-sacramental, marriage and the Church is 100% okay with that.

4 B) Among the 2.5 billion Christians worldwide, just under half of them are not Catholic and so, notwithstanding that marriages among them are sacramental, the Church does not impose on non-Catholic Christians any requirement that they marry in a religious ceremony. The Methodist minister’s son and the Baptist preacher’s daughter, otherwise eligible to marry, can marry according to their religious rites if they want, but, if they run off to the Justice of the Peace to get married, the Church recognizes that action as a wedding and the couple as married—and married sacramentally at that! Thus, a civil marriage between non-Catholic Christians, as long as it is a marriage under natural law, is a sacramental marriage—no matter who, however high up, implies otherwise.

4 C) Catholics, however, by canon law (with a few exceptions), must wed, if they want to marry at all, in accord with what is known technically as “canonical form”, (required sporadically since the Council of Trent, and widely only for the last 100 years), a requirement more commonly called “getting married in the Church”, i.e., in the lovely religious ceremony known as a church wedding. If, but only if, Catholics observe canonical form for marriage, they are married as far as natural law is concerned and, both being baptized, their marriage is a sacrament. Which is nice, of course! 

But, if Catholics do not observe this “canonical form” for marriage (and if they don’t fall under one of the few exceptions to that rule), then, the Church does not regard them as married AT ALL, not even “naturally”, let alone sacramentally! This demand for canonical form, binding only Catholics (who have long since found it as simple way to get out what sure likes like, and is, marriage to the rest of the world), notwithstanding the pastoral justifications it might have claimed in times past, is a huge imposition on the exercise of the natural right to marry and, in my view, should be abrogated. In any case, because the failure ‘to marry in the Church’ is most often attempted by Catholics in a civil ceremony, and results in NO MARRIAGE AT ALL, the term “civil marriage” has taken on in Catholic parlance an opprobrium that it does not deserve and indeed flies in the face of the Church’s respect for natural law and the countless good marriages entered according to it. That so many Catholics, including some high-ranking clergy, use the term “civil marriage” as a polite substitute for state-sanctioned shacking-up or, at best, for some second-class kind of marriage, is regrettable, but widespread.

Yes we cut such folks some slack: we Catholics have for several generations talked among ourselves about “civil marriage” as being a big nothing or a pretty close thereto, so that, when the State comes along, as it has in most of the West, and says that it will recognize as married persons of the same-sex (contrary to natural law, not to mention divine revelation), many Catholics casually, but quite inaccurately, pooh-pooh that recognition as a something ‘out there’ in the world but of no concern for us in the church. In short, we are tempted to say, who cares?

Well, we should care. How the State treats marriage, even “civil marriage”, is of great concern to the common good, and Catholics can bring much insight to that discussion. One major way for us to care about that matter is for those in ecclesial leadership positions to speak more accurately about marriage, both natural and sacramental, whether entered into civilly or religiously. Eventually, another way to serve the ecclesial and civil common good is, I hold, for the Church to drop the confusing, unnecessary, and liable-to-great-abuse requirement of canonical form for marriage among Roman Catholics, but that discussion is for another time. 

First, let’s all speak and think more clearly about what the marriage situation is now.

RSSTwitterIn the Light of the LawA Canon Lawyer’s Blog

It’s hard to think clearly about marriage if folks don’t speak clearly about marriage

March 18, 2021

These remarks are occasioned by Cdl. Farrell’s recent musings toward, it seems, admitting the Church’s inability to bless the sacramental marriages of same-sex couples but suggesting the possibility of blessing their non-sacramental or civil marriages (?) but, rather than sort through all that, let’s set out some distinctions crucial to discussions of marriage, sacramental and civil, among Catholics and briefly call attention, once again, to a major factor contributing to the Church’s apparent incoherence in this area.

1. Marriage is an institution that, by natural law (binding on all human beings) and divine revelation (binding on believers), can exist only between one man and one woman. Everything else one says about marriage, no matter who says it, including about the purposes of marriage, the duration of marriage, the religious and/or civil requirements and ceremonies for entering and ending marriage, the sacramentality of certain marriages, some apparent historical anomalies among the foregoing, the question of marriage nullity, everything else about marriage assumes the man-woman relationship.

2. Whenever marriage is entered into between two Christians (not just Catholics, mind), that marriage is not ‘merely’ (if I may put it that way) marriage as understood by natural law—although it is still virtually everything that marriage is by natural law—it is also a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace. What the Church calls “sacramental marriage”, then, is any and every marriage by natural law that is entered into by two Christians, this, whether that baptized man and woman care about the sacramentality of their marriage (as many Catholics do not) or whether they even know about the sacramentality of their marriage (as most Protestants would not).

3. Setting aside Catholics (and Orthodox) for the moment, the great majority of the world’s population (i.e., some 6 billion folks out of nearly 8 billion) can and do enter marriage as set out in natural law—and that is a wonderful and beautiful thing. Long story made short, whenever any man and any woman, each eligible to enter marriage, freely choose to enter it and do so in some publicly-recognizable manner, they are married according to the natural law whereupon the Church simply and happily recognizes that fact. In canonical terms, the Church accords the “presumption of validity” to all such marriages and, if she is ever asked about them (as happens from time to time), she replies that what looks like a marriage—as understood by natural law—is a marriage until proven otherwise.

But here is where an aspect of Catholic canon law starts to confuse the issue.

4 A) The great majority of the world not being Christian (let alone Catholic), canon law has nothing to say about how most of the world enters natural marriage. As long as the couple is eligible for marriage and freely chooses it, it matters not to the Church whether they do so in a religious or civil ceremony or some combination thereof. The great majority of the world enters natural (if we need that adjective), albeit non-sacramental, marriage and the Church is 100% okay with that.

4 B) Among the 2.5 billion Christians worldwide, just under half of them are not Catholic and so, notwithstanding that marriages among them are sacramental, the Church does not impose on non-Catholic Christians any requirement that they marry in a religious ceremony. The Methodist minister’s son and the Baptist preacher’s daughter, otherwise eligible to marry, can marry according to their religious rites if they want, but, if they run off to the Justice of the Peace to get married, the Church recognizes that action as a wedding and the couple as married—and married sacramentally at that! Thus, a civil marriage between non-Catholic Christians, as long as it is a marriage under natural law, is a sacramental marriage—no matter who, however high up, implies otherwise.

4 C) Catholics, however, by canon law (with a few exceptions), must wed, if they want to marry at all, in accord with what is known technically as “canonical form”, (required sporadically since the Council of Trent, and widely only for the last 100 years), a requirement more commonly called “getting married in the Church”, i.e., in the lovely religious ceremony known as a church wedding. If, but only if, Catholics observe canonical form for marriage, they are married as far as natural law is concerned and, both being baptized, their marriage is a sacrament. Which is nice, of course! 

But, if Catholics do not observe this “canonical form” for marriage (and if they don’t fall under one of the few exceptions to that rule), then, the Church does not regard them as married AT ALL, not even “naturally”, let alone sacramentally! This demand for canonical form, binding only Catholics (who have long since found it as simple way to get out what sure likes like, and is, marriage to the rest of the world), notwithstanding the pastoral justifications it might have claimed in times past, is a huge imposition on the exercise of the natural right to marry and, in my view, should be abrogated. In any case, because the failure ‘to marry in the Church’ is most often attempted by Catholics in a civil ceremony, and results in NO MARRIAGE AT ALL, the term “civil marriage” has taken on in Catholic parlance an opprobrium that it does not deserve and indeed flies in the face of the Church’s respect for natural law and the countless good marriages entered according to it. That so many Catholics, including some high-ranking clergy, use the term “civil marriage” as a polite substitute for state-sanctioned shacking-up or, at best, for some second-class kind of marriage, is regrettable, but widespread.

Yes we cut such folks some slack: we Catholics have for several generations talked among ourselves about “civil marriage” as being a big nothing or a pretty close thereto, so that, when the State comes along, as it has in most of the West, and says that it will recognize as married persons of the same-sex (contrary to natural law, not to mention divine revelation), many Catholics casually, but quite inaccurately, pooh-pooh that recognition as a something ‘out there’ in the world but of no concern for us in the church. In short, we are tempted to say, who cares?

Well, we should care. How the State treats marriage, even “civil marriage”, is of great concern to the common good, and Catholics can bring much insight to that discussion. One major way for us to care about that matter is for those in ecclesial leadership positions to speak more accurately about marriage, both natural and sacramental, whether entered into civilly or religiously. Eventually, another way to serve the ecclesial and civil common good is, I hold, for the Church to drop the confusing, unnecessary, and liable-to-great-abuse requirement of canonical form for marriage among Roman Catholics, but that discussion is for another time. 

First, let’s all speak and think more clearly about what the marriage situation is now.

— NEWS —

21 States File Lawsuit Against Biden To Overturn Controversial Canceling Of Keystone XL Pipeline

ByRyan Saavedra•Mar 17, 2021   DailyWire.com•FacebookTwitterMail

Twenty-one states have filed a lawsuit against Democrat President Joe Biden over his controversial canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline, a decision that has sparked pushback even from Democrats who are not far-left on energy policy.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleges that Biden has exceeded his presidential authority by canceling the pipeline on his first day in office, a move that even angered Canada.DEB_Promo_210218_FINAL_60 Sec.

The attorneys general argue that Biden exceeded his authority because “of a provision Congress tucked into tax legislation in 2011 that required then-President Barack Obama to either approve the pipeline within 60 days or issue a determination that it wasn’t in the national interest,” NBC News reported. “Obama then rejected TransCanada’s (now TC Energy Corp) application weeks later, saying Congress gave him insufficient time, but allowed the company to re-apply, which deferred the decision until after his re-election. Obama later rejected the application, President Donald Trump approved it, and Biden revoked the approval.”

The states that are suing Biden include Texas, Montana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The lawsuit states in part:

Revocation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a regulation of interstate and international commerce, which can only be accomplished as any other statute can: through the process of bicameralism and presentment. The President lacks the power to enact his “ambitious plan” to reshape the economy in defiance of Congress’s unwillingness to do so. To the extent that Congress had delegated such authority, it would violate the non-delegation doctrine. But Congress has not delegated such authority: It set specific rules regarding what actions the President can take about Keystone XL and when. The President, together with various senior executive officials, violated those rules. The action should be set aside as inconsistent with the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500, et seq.

“Since his first day in office, President Biden has made it his mission to undo all the progress of the previous administration, with complete disregard for the Constitutional limits on his power. His decision to revoke the pipeline permit is not only unlawful but will also devastate the livelihoods of thousands of workers, their families, and their communities,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “This administration continues to tout imaginary green-energy jobs, without any recognition that their actions in the real world will make it impossible for hard-working Americans to put food on the table.”

“The power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce belongs to Congress — not the President. This is another example of Joe Biden overstepping his constitutional role to the detriment of Montanans,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen added. “There is not even a perceived environmental benefit to his actions. His attempt to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline is an empty virtue signal to his wealthy coastal elite donors. It shows Biden’s contempt for rural communities in Montana and other states along the pipeline’s path that would benefit from and support the project.”

Systemic Transformation

By: Judd GarrettObjectivity is the Objective

March 17, 2021

HAT TIP: RIP MCINTOSH/

On July 2, 1964 President Lyndon Baines Johnson, with Martin Luther King Jr in attendance, signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill into law, declaring discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin illegal in the United States of America. The Law prohibits that type of discrimination in voter registration requirements; in access to hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations; in any program and activity that receives federal funds; by employers; while also enforcing the desegregation of public schools.
This was an enormous win for the Civil Rights of all people in America, and against the forces of racism. Martin Luther King Jr declared the signing of the bill into law as a “second emancipation”. For the past 57 years, it has been a Federal crime to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, yet recently, the phrase that dominates our political landscape is “systemic racism”. 
The United States of America is accused again, and again, and again of being “systemically racist.” But the 1964 Civil Rights Law and “systemic racism” are incompatible. They cannot co-exist. “Systemic racism” is a direct violation of that Federal law. The law was passed to eradicate “systemic racism”. You cannot have a law that prohibits racial discrimination as part of a system that promulgates racial discrimination. That’s like having a computer code that says, “if A, then B” and “if A, then not B”. It does not compute.
So, charging the United States of being “systemically racist” is to claim that the 1964 Civil Rights Law is ineffective and useless. You cannot charge “systemic racism” and defend the effectiveness of the law designed to dismantle and prohibit “systemic racism” at the same time. If “systemic racism” is still so prevalent why is no one calling for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights law? 
If “systemic racism” existed, it would not have allowed Barack Obama to become President, or Kamala Harris to become Vice President, or Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to become Secretary of State, or Eric Holder and Jocelyn Elders to become Attorney General. They would never have risen to those heights and attain that level of power in this country if this country was “systemically racist”. Their success directly contradicts this charge. 
It appears that the people charging America of “systemic racism”don’t even know what the word “systemic” actually means. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, the word “systemic” is defined as; Of or relating to systems or a system. Relating to or affecting the entire body or an entire organism. “Systemic racism” means that racism affects every aspect of the entire country and that racism is codified into the laws, the governing system of the country. Based on the meaning of the word “systemic”, and in light of the 1964 Civil Rights Law, it is safe to conclude America is “systemically” not racist.
Are there individual instances of racism? Yes. Are there individuals who are racist in this country? Yes. And these need to be exposed and properly dealt with. But to conflate individual instances of racism to make the charge that the United States is “systemically racist” is twisting reality to create a convenient narrative. This is an important distinction. If it’s individual racism but not systemic racism, then the individual person should be held accountable and needs to change. But if it’s systemic racism then the entire system must be dismantled and changed. And that is what’s driving this continual push of the “systemic racist” narrative. 
Many of the people who are charging “systemic racism”, are less interested in eradicating racism and more determined on dismantling the system. Charges of racism are being exploited to open the door to change the entire country into what they envision. This is why they want to cancel the founders of our country on the grounds of racism so they can discredit our founding principles in the Constitution. The Constitution is the bulwark that is standing in their way of implementing their vision for America, a vision that will resemble a Totalitarian Communist State more than a free Constitutional Republic. To them, America needs to be “systemically racist”, rotten to its core so they can “fundamentally transform” our country into their vision, as both Presidents Obama and Biden have promised. 
We must stand up against this insidious totalitarian infiltration into our country, and into our political and social discourse. We know the majority of Americans are good, hard-working, compassionate, empathetic people who want everyone to be treated fairly and justly. That’s who we are, and that’s what we believe. Their strategy only works if we as a people are all of those things. That is what they are exploiting to force their agenda on the country. If we were uncaring, selfish, hateful people like they portray us, we would not allow their agenda to gain an inch. We would concede nothing as they do. But our compassion, our empathy, our desire for fair play can only be exploited for so long before we collectively say, ‘not anymore’. Now is the time when we need to say, no more. We are done capitulating to this racist totalitarian agenda disguised as anti-racism. No more. We are better than this.