The people who are hell-bent on canceling Dr. Seuss and Clarence Thomas, and replacing them with Critical Race Theory should put down the books on “white fragility” and “white privilege”, and open up a book by Dr. Seuss or watch the documentary on Clarence Thomas, they may learn something about combatting real racism and prejudice. They may in fact learn something about humanity.

A Person’s a PersonBy: Judd GarrettObjectivity is the ObjectiveMarch 3, 2021 On March 2nd, President Joe Biden refused to mention world-renown children’s book author, Dr. Seuss, during his presentation on National Read Across America Day which promotes story-time to children. It was a strange omission because the day was initially created as a celebration of Theodore Geisel’s, a.k.a. Dr. Seuss’ birthday.  Biden omitted Dr. Seuss because the people controlling Joe Biden have deemed Dr. Seuss racist. The Dr. Seuss Foundation has also stopped publishing six Dr. Seuss books because of the so-called racial images in those books. If you have read any of Dr. Seuss’s books, you will quickly realize that Theodore Geisel was anything but a racist. The messages in his books were ones of overwhelming inclusion, and anti-prejudice, not exclusion and racism. Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are? teaches children to be grateful for their lives, and to be optimistic about life. “You oughta be thankful, a whole heaping lot, for the people and places, you’re lucky you’re not.” These are lessons that many of the people who want to destroy our culture and tear down America need desperately to learn. Happy Birthday to You! teaches children to celebrate who they are, their uniqueness. “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.” It promotes embracing your individuality, your distinctness, who you are. It is a message for the individual that directly contradicts the ideologies promoted by proponents of group identity and identity politics. Horton Hears a Who believes that the size of a person does not define the person’s humanity. It is a lesson that the people at Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion activists have yet to learn. Even though that message was not intended to be an anti-abortion message, it is can easily be applied to abortion because one of the pro-abortion justifications for abortion is the lack of size of the fetus gives another person the right to kill it. “A person’s a person, no matter how small! And you very small persons will not have to die if you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!” How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is not only a story of anti-materialism and the true meaning of Christmas, but also one of forgiveness and redemption. The Who’s allowed the Grinch, the person who hours before tried to steal their Christmas, to carve the holiday roast beast, and celebrate Christmas with them because they saw that “the Grinch’s small heart grew three sizes that day.” People can, in fact, have a change in heart and be forgiven. A shocking lesson that the champions of cancel culture have refused to learn. In his book, The Sneetches, Dr. Seuss takes on racism and judging people based on their outward physical appearance. In this case, the physical differences were whether a Sneetch had a star on his belly or not. “until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one or what one was who.” It is more important who you are on the inside than what you look like on the outside. This is the same message that Dr. Martin Luther King jr. stood up for when he said that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” A message that many of the champions of identity politics have failed to understand. Yertle the Turtle is an anti-authoritarian story that promotes individual human rights, again a book that many people on the left who are promoting this totalitarian banning of books and cancel culture need to read. “And the fools that I saw were none other than you, who seem to have nothing else better to do than sit here and argue who’s better than who!” The fools are those in our society who think they are so much better than everyone else they can cancel others they deem not as good as they. And today as in the book, the people have the right to say, “I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down here on the bottom, we too should have rights”. So, it is clear by the content of Dr. Seuss’s books, that Theodore Geisel was not a racist. But you know who are racists in our society? The people who promote the concept of “White Privilege”. These people purport to know everything about another person based solely on the color of their skin. By their philosophical standards, they will claim that a white single mother living on food stamps is more privileged in our society than LeBron James or Jaden Smith. Do you know who else is a racist? The people who subscribe to the concept of “White Fragility”. These people tell white people that they are not allowed to speak up for themselves or defend themselves against accusations of racism simply because they are white. They tell white people they have to shut up and take it because of the color of their skin. These people will say my calling out white fragility is a sign of my white fragility, and I should be quiet and accept the false judgment of people I don’t know based on the color of my skin. Do you know who else is a racist? White people who feel compelled to apologize to the world not for something they actually did, but for the mere fact that they were born white. Not only are they apologizing for themselves, but in essence, they are apologizing for and dismissing their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, their entire ancestry because they were white, and they are responsible for them being born. Do you know who are the real racists in our society? The proponents of “Critical Race Theory”. They are promoting the teaching in our schools and colleges a theory that claims that skin color is the most defining characteristic of a person, not their character, not their intelligence, not their abilities, not their goodness, kindness, generosity, selflessness, no. Those things are irrelevant compared to skin color. Speaking of banning books and canceling people, you know who also is a racist? Amazon. They took down the video documentary of black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, during black history month. Amazon deemed he is not black enough to be included in black history month because he says things like, “To define each of us by our race is nothing short of a denial of our humanity.” And “I don’t believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights.”  So, Jeff Bezos, a white billionaire, is telling Clarence Thomas, who grew up in the segregated south, a descendent of slaves, that he is not black enough because he does not toe the black party line when he says things like, “Long gone is the time when we opposed the notion that we all looked alike and talked alike. Somehow, we have come to exalt the new black stereotype above all and to demand conformity to that norm… [However], I assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black.” Clearance Thomas sees how all these so-called “anti-racism” and “equity” initiatives are not intended to free people from the shackles of racism, but to create grounds to suppress people within the confines of their race. He believes, “there is a moral and constitutional equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality… In my mind, government-sponsored racial discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice.” People like Jeff Bezos must cancel Clarence Thomas not solely because he is a conservative, but mainly because he sees right through the liberal elites like Bezos when he says, “I’d grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I’d been afraid of the wrong white people all along – where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes, but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.” Justice Thomas asserts that “the absolute worst I have ever been treated, the worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, are by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.” And one of those “northern liberal elites” is no other than our current President who executed a “high-tech lynching” on Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearing on October 11, 1991. The same President who canceled Dr. Suess on false charges of racism treated Clarence Thomas worse than the KKK. Like Theodore Gisele, Clearance Thomas knows exactly who the real racists in our society are. He spells it out clearly in plain language as much as Dr. Suess does in lyrical story-telling, but both messages are the same, and that’s why Joe Biden, Jeff Bezos, and the liberal elites must cancel both of them because they expose the racism of the left.  As Dr. Seuss wrote in The Lorax, “A tree falls the way it leans. Be careful which way you lean.” The United States of America right now is leaning heavily to the left, and we are on the verge of falling over due to the racial prejudices that the left is promoting. The people who are hell-bent on canceling Dr. Seuss and Clarence Thomas, and replacing them with Critical Race Theory should put down the books on “white fragility” and “white privilege”, and open up a book by Dr. Seuss or watch the documentary on Clarence Thomas, they may learn something about combatting real racism and prejudice. They may in fact learn something about humanity.

NEWS

LEADING ITALIAN JURIST PUTS BENEDICT’S RENUNCIATION OF PAPACY IN DOUBT

MARCH 9, 2021EDITOR8 COMMENTS

Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

March 9, 2021: What started as a united chorus of doubt and criticism at the Vatican’s latest attempt to make Pope Benedict XVI appear to be on Bergoglio’ s side has turned into a proper public relations disaster for the Globalists in charge of the Vatican.

Now, after universal condemnation of Massimo Franco for having invented an interview of Pope Benedict XVI from a few words exchanged, after the gift of a few cartoons, it has balooned into a crisis of national proportions, as one of Italy’s leading experts in law has sounded out on the side of those who doubt the validity of Benedict XVI’s renuncation.

Please note, that in this controversy, the phrase “invalidity of the Resignation” refers to the incapacity of the act spoken by Pope Benedict in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, to effect his loss of the Papal office, NOT to the question as to whether a Pope can renounce the doing of the pope while remaining the pope — a thesis which juridically is denied by no one, though there is nearly a universal agreement that without an extraordinary reason, the doing of such would be highly contrary to the will of Jesus Christ, the Author of the papal office.

The legal expert in question is none other than Attorney Carlo Taormina, and his comments were published at noon today in an interview by Andrea Cionci, of the Libero Quotidiano. — Click the image above to read the original Italian.

This marks the first time a jurist of eminent stature has spoken on the controversy, and it will be worth while for the entire Church, that FromRome.Info publish its own English translation of the entire interview, which here follows:

The Resignation of Benedict XVI: strong doubts even from Attorney Taormina

“It is necessary that the appropriate ecclesiastical centers clear this up“

by Andrea Cionci

Attorney Carlo Taormina, jurist and ordinary professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of “Tor Vergata” (here at Rome), has commented on the question raised by the juridical text by the Colombian lawyer, Estefania Acosta, entitled, “Benedict XVI: the pope emeritus?”.  Her book affirms, in line with the opinion given by Antonio Socci in 2018, in his book, “Il Segreto di Benedetto XVI” (“The Secret of Benedict XVI”), Rizzoli Books, that the sole pope is still the one and only Ratzinger, who, in fact, never did resign with his “Declaratio”, but rather kept the name, title, white cassock, Apostolic blessing, and residence in the Vatican.  For just as “the pope is only one”, as the same Benedict fondly repeats, so the Pope is still himself and, consequently, Bergoglio is an anti-pope.

As Prof. Taormina notes — who has already expressed some problems with the pontificate of Francis — “The situation uncovered by Attorney Acosta – as by other journalists and experts before her – and the collection of facts reconstructed at the Libero Quotidiano surely requires a more profound investigation of the documents and a study of them by canonists in the appropriate ecclesiastical centers.

“From the very moment of his “choice” it has been affirmed in the most accredited positions of the Roman Curia, that Ratzinger was making concrete a situation which, at the level of of Petrine acts, maintained him on that which pertained to him, leaving for others the mere materiality of power (practical functions).”

As the thesis of Attorney Acosta supports, on top of the “invalid resignation”, there is also invalid the manner in which some ecclesiastics have wanted to interpret it as a “Resignation of the Papacy”, (1) as a free, conscious (but invalid) declaration of a “Papal Renunciation of two practical functions”: (2) as a “trick” planned by Ratzinger to cage the “St. Gallen Mafia” (the lobby of modernist Cardinals hostile to him), while at the same time offering the modernists a self-deception which caused them to abusively appropriate the throne of Peter.  It remains that that document, according to Acosta and others, read as a “resignation”, has no basis in law.

To give a simple example of that of which we speak, it would be as if an elderly property owner of one villa might say, “Since I am begining to suffer from the cold, I renounce going to my villa in the winter”.

But his neighbors interpret that declaration as if he had said, “I am abandoning my villa and I renounce its property rights”, and occupy it. Meanwhile the meek and defenseless property owner lets them do as they please, but every once a while remarks:  “The property owner is only one (myself!)”, in the hope that someone comes and drives his neighbors out.

In this manner, Benedict would have chosen to not react, to not accuse Bergoglio openly of being an antipope: and for this reason uses a veiled manner of expression, logically subtle, but along with which he repeats “The Pope is me”, in hope that the clergy come to understand him and press that “red button” by declaring the invalidity of his presumed resignation and, consequently, of the entire Bergoglian church.

Attorney Taormina agrees:  “It is striking, in fact, the continual and studied ambiguity, in the arc of 8 years, attributed in the declarations of Ratzinger which, in their substance, seem to always repeat the same thing, that is, that he, Benedict, is the pope, and no other.

It has already been shown, in fact, that the sole pronouncements of Benedict which the Main Stream Media has presented to the world as unequivocally in favor of Pope Francis as a legitimate pope, have never been direct citations or “corroborated” by Ratzinger, but are rather, consistently headlines in newspapers, journalistic reconstructions of “I was told he said”, citations of other persons who say that “they heard he said” such words, or that “they had read” some missive presented in its original copy.

Considering the surgical precision of the language used by Ratzinger, it would be indispensable, at this point, to examine the originals of such alleged documents.

“In a person of literary and scientific rigor such as Benedict”, affirms Attorney Taormina, “an affirmation so cutting (such as ‘the Pope is only one’) cannot be other than intended out of a sense of wanting to send a precise and inescapable message, that Bergoglio has not taken his place”.

And if he “has not take his place”, then Francis is an antipope, and hence, until there is clarity on this question no Pope after him will be a true pope and the true Church would be finished.

As Attorney Taormina continues, “The very lengths with which the Main Stream Media go to construct their narrative, at any cost, to make Benedict XVI declare that the Pope is Francis, constitute an element which makes the scene all the more grave, in the sense that it renders, one way or the other, more and more plausible the reconstruction of the so-called “Catholic Reset”.  Moreover, this most strange present situation of two popes at the same time, has heaped up a quantity of doubts which can no longer be ignored.  Besides, the precision at which the Mass Media and Vatican have taken to avoid the question adds a further element which should give all the more alarm.

To sum up: What Ratzinger freely and consciously did do was to write a Declaration that delegated the most burdensome duties of his office (to Cardinals or Bishops, presumbably), but inasmuch as it was invalid, did not render the Apostolic See vacant.  It has been others, who have abusively interpreted this document as a “valid resignation of the papacy”, when it is in fact no such thing, or because it is much too ambiguous to be considered valid to effect such a thing.

Sergio Russo and Rosanna Iabobacci, in their book, “Cuori chiusi, cieli aperti” (“Closed hearts, but open skies”) seem to have outlined the road ahead when they wrote: “There is no pope to depose, but there is a cardinal (antipope) to remove”, and, in the last consideration, one must chose one, or more, vicars, among the Bishops and Cardinals, to assist Pope Benedict at his side to fulfill those two practical duties which he wanted to renounce: to govern the Barque of Peter and to announce the Gospel.

Some readers will lose their way in such a controversy, but for the rest, if, as we hypothesize it, one is face to face with a subtle trick worked out by one of the most important intellectuals of our own day, to evade a coup d’etat by clever and determined Cardinals, how could anyone be expected to understand it at first glance?

Any interested party will have to read and reread with calm to understand it.  Behold why clarifying the matter in the appropriate centers of power would be to the advantage of all.

https://www.libertycoalitioncanada.com/post/press-release-canadian-doctors-speaking-out

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Cuomo not Accused of this: “Agent got Suspended… after Shoving… Biden when he Cupped the Agent’s Girlfriend’s Breasts” & he “Grop[ed] all of our Wives ” 

March 10, 2021

Today, Democrat New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was accused of sexual harassment by a sixth women, but so far none of the accusers have said he cupped their breasts or has he been accused by his security agents of “grop[ing] all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.”

Last year, Blabber Buzz News reported in a article titled “‘Full-Protection’: Secret Service ‘Accidentally’ Deletes ‘Biden Sex Assualt’ Report” that a “Secret Service agent got suspended in 2009 for a week after shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden when he cupped the agent’s girlfriend’s breasts while posing for a photo with him…. a source who was a Secret Service agent told The Gateway Pundit”:

The Secret Service confirmed a report from The Gateway Pundit that involved a sexual incident between a Secret Service agent and Biden, back in 2009.

A Secret Service agent got suspended in 2009 for a week after shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden when he cupped the agent’s girlfriend’s breasts while posing for a photo with him. The altercation escalated so fast, others had to intervene and hold back the agent who was on the verge of hitting Biden, a source who was a Secret Service agent told The Gateway Pundit.Under anonymity, the agent feared another occurrence alike could be repeated, so they had to cancel the VP Christmas meeting at Biden’s house “because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.” [https://www.blabber.buzz/conservative-news/1004444-full-protection-secret-service-accidentally-deletes-biden-sex-assualt-report?utm_source=c-alrt&utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-AOL&utm_content=5-8kN9_4nyPdPjyrebZtZadcSMHcoDdp1Vn3dUCTuXVQ.A]

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. SHARE

A Win for Free Speech at SCOTUS

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a lawsuit may proceed against college campus “free speech zones.”

By: NATE JACKSON

American Thinker

March 9, 2021

Chike Uzuegbunam may not be a household name, but the principle for which he fights — free speech — should unify us all. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Monday that Uzuegbunam can continue his lawsuit against Georgia Gwinnett College over the school’s violation of his freedom of speech by severely restricting his ability to distribute Christian literature on campus.
“University police officers first approached Uzuegbunam as he distributed Christian literature on campus in 2016,” reports The Washington Free Beacon. “The officers told him he could not distribute the literature because he was not in a university designated free speech zone.’ When Uzuegbunam moved to one of the zones, he was again told to stop because he was being disruptive. University officials allegedly threatened him with disciplinary action.Uzuegbunam, who was joined in the lawsuit by fellow Christian student Joseph Bradford, requested compensatory damages of one dollar to signify that the school had violated his rights.”
Uzuegbunam’s supporters range from Christians and conservative advocates of free speech to even the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been a fair-weather fan of its own namesake for some time now.
So why was the decision 8-1 and not 9-0? Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.
Roberts was wrong, albeit for an understandable reason. He bought the same argument that prevailed in lower courts — that Uzuegbunam had no standing in the case, not only as a former student but because the college later reversed its own policy, thus (ostensibly) making the issue moot. He also mocked the $1 damages sought.
But Uzuegbunam’s rights were still violated, and no school should get away with that just because it later backs down. What, then, would prevent a school from censoring speech just long enough to have the intended effect before appearing to relent?
Standing is far more important than just a technicality, and we cannot have a justice system bogged down with lawsuits that do not deal with concrete injury. Yet the First Amendment is under direct and all-out assault, particularly on the very college campuses where it should be a prized right and value. Thus, eight justices were correct in protecting the First Amendment and issuing a warning of sorts to any college administrators who think it will suffice to offer students a “free speech zone” that, in this case, amounted to 0.0015% of campus.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all seven of the others, and he made clear the bottom line: “It is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him.” That shouldn’t happen in America.

C.S. Lewis wrote this nearly 70 years ago but could have been written today

 One young devil asked the old man: “How did you manage to bring so many souls to hell?” 

The old devil answered: “I instilled fear in them!” 

Answers the youngster: “Great job! And what were they afraid of? Wars? Hunger?” 

Answers the man: “No, they were afraid of the disease!” 

For this youngster: “Does this mean they didn’t get sick? Are they not dead? There was no rescue for them?” 

The old man answered: “But no . . . they got sick, died, and the rescue was there.” 

The young devil, surprised, answered: “Then I don’t understand???” 

The old man answered: “You know they believed the only thing they have to keep at any cost is their lives. They stopped hugging, greeting each other. They’ve moved away from each other. They gave up all social contacts and everything that was human! Later they ran out of money, lost their jobs, but that was their choice because they were afraid for their lives, that’s why they quit their jobs without even having bread. They believed blindly everything they heard and read in the papers. They gave up their freedoms, they didn’t leave their own homes literally anywhere. They stopped visiting family and friends. The world turned into such a concentration camp, without forcing them into captivity. They accepted everything!!! Just to live at least one more miserable day . . . And so living, they died every day!!! And that’s how it was very easy for me to take their miserable souls to hell… ′′ 

C.S. Lewis – ′′ Old Devil’s Letters To Young ′′ 1942.  

Hat Tip: Kathleen Alexander

• Social media censorship of the free exchange of ideas,
• Mainstream messaging that drives toward thought control,
• Political correctness designed to force behavioral compliance,
• The selective application and weaponization of the very ideals, laws, and institutions designed to protect us,
• Large-scale attacks on the family and on patriotism itself.
• These problems are big problems, but you do not have to be some D.C. superstar to be a part of the solution. Victory can be achieved through the coordinated efforts of many people doing small but courageous acts of patriotism.

Exclusive from Gen. Flynn: 5 Lessons I Learned When the Deep State Came After Me and My Family

By Michael Flynn

March 8, 2021

Rip McIntosh

 
You do not have to watch the news for long to see that America is rapidly changing. The downward slide can be found not only in our leadership but also in the shifting definitions of right and wrong blindly accepted by many Americans today.
Our leaders would have us believe that these changing values are inevitable and that they are good. That is why they are called “progressive.”
Yet to those of us who still believe in the immortal truths upon which America was founded, their so-called “progress” is alarming, to say the least.
Sadly, some will allow this alarm to grow into defeatism. They will turn their faces away from the battle before us in hopes of finding a position to retreat to.
To those who would prefer retreat or surrender rather than the fight, I ask you one simple question:
If America falls, where will you go?
Where will you go to find another nation that provides the opportunities and individual guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Where will you find a nation whose founding documents guarantee a government of, by, and for the people?
Name a place that offers you and your family the same or more than our United States of America.
The answer is simple: There is no such place.
In spite of our downward slide, America is still the best nation on the face of the earth. This is our land, these are our people, these are our cities, neighborhoods, and streets. This is our country.
Though the battle for the soul of America is fierce before us, we cannot afford to look away in hopes of finding retreat. There will be none.
Though I may sound pessimistic, I am anything but. God enabled me to endure a years-long campaign by the left to destroy me and my family. They wanted me to serve as an example to anyone who would defy the entrenched bureaucrats of the swamp.
Despite their best efforts, I stand before you as living proof that victory is absolutely possible.
The very fact that we are gathered here today as American citizens free to speak and peaceably assemble should fill us with hope.
But being hopeful is not a survival plan. Hope has never won a war, nor will it win peace on the home front. In this article, it is my intention today to share with you a few lessons I learned in my battle against the dark forces that still threaten our nation today.
When fighting for truth, the most important place to start is to be well-grounded in the Truth itself. I am referring to Truth with a capital T, as in “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
Faith in God is an essential part of the fight to restore American greatness. Our personal faith is inextricably linked to our personal liberties.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the great French author of the groundbreaking work Democracy in America, wrote “Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention…“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”
De Tocqueville is exactly right. Prior to America’s founding, no document in the world had directly linked the individual rights of citizens to their unique value and autonomy before an omnipotent Creator.
We should not try to commemorate our Founders’ willingness to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor without also acknowledging the faith that served as the foundation for such boldness.
Faith and freedom can never be separated from one another.If you wish to have boldness in the fight for America like our Founding Fathers did, have faith in Almighty God. Trust in his power as your sword and your shield.
I must confess that I am rarely one to wear my faith on my sleeve, but fighting with the deep state taught me just how faithful our God is. Even when so many of my friends and colleagues abandoned me, God never did. In fact, going through those trials only brought him closer. Make faith an essential part of your battle strategy today.
As we root ourselves in faith, we must also root ourselves in the writings of our Founding Fathers. If we are to preserve the legacy of such great men as George Washington, John Adams, and Patrick Henry, we must know what they stood for.
Anyone can learn more about our nation’s founding. Start simple. When was the last time you read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
We tend to forget just how easy it is to read the Constitution from cover to cover. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act was more than 314,000 words long, but the document that frames our entire system of government is only 4,500 words in length. The average American can read it in half an hour.
Of course, if we really want to get into the mindset of our Founding Fathers, we must dig deeper. The Federalist Papers, de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Paine’s Common Sense, and the writings of John Locke are all well worth the read.
America’s conception was indeed miraculous, but it was far from accidental. The men who met in Philadelphia were bold men of faith and character who risked everything to “secure the blessings of liberty.”
We must learn of their sacrifice, and we must honor it.
The great pamphleteer Thomas Paine eloquently wrote in his The American Crisis that “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”
Those words were read to the entire Continental Army by order of General George Washington, but they still apply equally to us today. Freedom requires the sacrifices of every generation.
As we build upon our faith and a clear understanding of our founding documents, we must never forget the importance of our family in the stand for truth.
When no one else would stand by my side, my wife Lori was there, just as she has been since we met at 13 years old. I married my high school sweetheart in 1981, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made.
Lori has been my rock on a sea of uncertainty. The same strength of character and conviction that made her an amazing Army wife has also equipped her to withstand the political battles of the past few years.
She is my best friend. I count myself blessed beyond measure to have her by my side.
There is a reason why the forces of darkness are trying so hard to eradicate the family as we know it. They see how powerful the bond of family can be, so they want to redefine it, water it down and replace it with a dependency on the state.
We cannot allow them to destroy the family. As long as marriages and families are strong, freedom will always have a fighting chance.
Never concede to those who say they know how to raise your children better than you do. God entrusted the care of children to parents, not to governments.
As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation from extinction.” Take Reagan’s words to heart as you train up your children. Your fight for freedom today will mean nothing if the next generation does not know to keep it.
Do not think of the fight to protect our families as distinct from our fight to save America. The fight to protect the family is the cornerstone of our fight to save America. It is unlikely that anything else you do in life will be as important or as meaningful.
Looking again to our forefathers, we see that they acted courageously for the sake of future generations. We see their concern for their children and their children’s children in everything they said and did.
Benjamin Franklin urged ratification of the U.S. Constitution with the reasoning that “For the sake of our Posterity we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.”
When you fight for America, remember that you are fighting for your family (moms, dads). Make that a guiding light when you do battle against the forces of darkness.
After building the importance of family upon the foundation of faith and the founding, patriots must come to see the importance of true friendship.
John Adams called friendship “one of the distinguishing glories of man … From this I expect to receive the chief happiness of my future life.”
When I became the favorite target of the left for the crime of helping candidate Trump win the presidency of the United States and then serving as his first national security advisor, I was abandoned by many who said they were my friends.
Those whom I had previously spent time with suddenly stopped calling, texting, and engaging with me and my family. Only when I needed them most did they reveal their true colors.
To be honest, I felt betrayed.
Yet, it was during these dark days that I discovered that I had more friends than I ever realized. Letters began pouring in from every corner of the nation, and in some cases, from around the world.
These letters, many of them from Christians and patriots I had never met, contained words of encouragement, funds for my legal defense, and offerings of prayers on my behalf in my darkest hours. These were the expressions of true friends.
I was so moved by these thousands of friends that I made it my mission to thank every one of them. I still treasure their letters to this day.
You may not receive thousands of letters of encouragement as I did, but you should think now about who your true friends are. If you are going to fight the battle for liberty, you must ask yourself whether the people you depend on are going to be with you when the going gets tough.
Remember, you are not alone. There are many other Americans like us who want to defend our great national heritage, but those who stand against us want to divide in order to conquer us.
Don’t let them get away with it. Find your true friends and stand with them boldly. We can win this fight if we work together.
So far, I have told you the importance of faith, addressed our nation’s founding, and spoken to the importance of family and the value of true friendship. These are the elements I have found to be vital when everything else seems stacked against you.
Now I would like to talk about the fight.
America needs fighters today. We need those who will say as President Andrew Jackson did, “I was born for a storm, and a calm does not suit me.”
We need those who will stand against failed Marxist ideologies that have invaded the mainstream of our consciousness like a network of choking vines seeking to strangle the mighty American oak tree.
These vines manifest themselves through:

Start by reaching out to those around you. Be an outspoken voice in your church and community. You will be amazed how many hearts and minds can be swayed just by calmly, intelligently, and respectfully presenting a viewpoint outside of what is said in mainstream news.
Next, make it your goal to be where the action is taking place. It is commonly said that “history is made by those who show up.”Take the time to go to meetings at city hall. Be a presence at your local school board meetings. Get to know your state’s legislators and keep on top of what is going on at your state’s capitol.
Don’t just complain about how elections are not conducted fairly. Be a part of the solution by petitioning or lobbying at whatever political level that suits you to strengthen election integrity laws. Contact your local party precinct about volunteering as a poll watcher. Remember, the most powerful office in the world is not the President of the United States but, on any given election day, it is a determined and patriotic precinct volunteer.
If your local officials refuse to stand for what is right, employ the ultimate weapon of the grassroots activist. Tell them that you will run against them and follow through on it.
Every politician at every level fears nothing more than the possibility of losing their power. Even if the odds are stacked against you in your township or district, a strong showing from conservatives can keep your officials from straying too far to the left in the future.
However you decide to get involved, make the decision today. America needs soldiers in the fight for freedom.
No one is coming to rescue us from our problems. Some think that the judiciary will solve all of our problems, but they have proven themselves to be unreliable at best.
Rather than waiting for someone else to fight for us, we must be willing to do the hard work ourselves.
The forces arrayed against us are great. They have money, power, and privilege on their side.
They want to force the neck of every hardworking American into the yoke of servitude and taxation.
They want to force our mouths into the muzzle of Big Tech censorship and cancel culture.
They want to take our children from us, forcing them to look to Big Brother government rather than those who truly love them.
Yet, for all their plans and power, the forces of darkness can still be defeated.
A friend recently gave me an interesting new perspective on a familiar chapter in American history. Remember that General George Washington commanded a small band of patriots against the greatest military force on the planet.
My friend said “His Continental Army was out-trained, out-gunned, and out-numbered by the British Regulars. The Red Coats were a hardened and well-disciplined army against whom Washington’s rag-tag volunteers were no match.“The colonies were divided over the war. Congress was practically dysfunctional during the most critical period. And in the infamous 1778 winter encampment at Valley Forge, Washington’s 11,000[-man] army nearly dissolved from starvation, disease, and discouragement among the ranks!”
We all know how the story ended. Against all odds, the Americans beat the British and formed the greatest nation in world history.
It wasn’t strokes of luck but divine Providence that made this possible. President Washington later charged his fellow Americans that “We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”
As today’s patriots, we fight for those same “eternal rules of order and right.” No matter what anyone says, the character of righteousness has not changed.
Those rules were established before the foundation of the world, affirmed by our great Founding Fathers, and maintained by every American generation up to this critical chapter in our history.
With these eternal truths at stake, will you fight with me now in the cause of freedom?
Will you be counted among those who cared enough to pass the torch of freedom to a new generation while it still burns bright?
There can be no retreat and no surrender. As I asked before, where will you go if America falls?
Our battleground is here. Our shield is faith. Our sword is truth.
Victory is ours if we do not cower in the face of evil and oppression.
Will you join the fight?
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I pray you will.
God bless America.
Michael Thomas Flynn Lieut. Gen. U. S.Army retired

NEWS

LEADING ITALIAN JURIST PUTS BENEDICT’S RENUNCIATION OF PAPACY IN DOUBT

MARCH 9, 2021EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

March 9, 2021: What started as a united chorus of doubt and criticism at the Vatican’s latest attempt to make Pope Benedict XVI appear to be on Bergoglio’ s side has turned into a proper public relations disaster for the Globalists in charge of the Vatican.

Now, after universal condemnation of Massimo Franco for having invented an interview of Pope Benedict XVI from a few words exchanged, after the gift of a few cartoons, it has balooned into a crisis of national proportions, as one of Italy’s leading experts in law has sounded out on the side of those who doubt the validity of Benedict XVI’s renuncation.

Please note, that in this controversy, the phrase “invalidity of the Resignation” refers to the incapacity of the act spoken by Pope Benedict in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, to effect his loss of the Papal office, NOT to the question as to whether a Pope can renounce the doing of the pope while remaining the pope — a thesis which juridically is denied by no one, though there is nearly a universal agreement that without an extraordinary reason, the doing of such would be highly contrary to the will of Jesus Christ, the Author of the papal office.

The legal expert in question is non other than Attorney Carlo Taormina, and his comments were published at noon today in an interview by Andrea Cionci, of the Libero Quotidiano. — Click the image above to read the original Italian.

This marks the first time a jurist of eminent stature has spoken on the controversy, and it will be worth while for the entire Church, that FromRome.Info publish its own English translation of the entire interview, which here follows:

The Resignation of Benedict XVI: strong doubts even from Attorney Taormina

“It is necessary that the appropriate ecclesiastical centers clear this up“

by Andrea Cionci

Attorney Carlo Taormina, jurist and ordinary professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of “Tor Vergata” (here at Rome), has commented on the question raised by the juridical text by the Colombian lawyer, Estefania Acosta, entitled, “Benedict XVI: the pope emeritus?”.  Her book affirms, in line with the opinion given by Antonio Socci in 2018, in his book, “Il Segreto di Benedetto XVI” (“The Secret of Benedict XVI”), Rizzoli Books, that the sole pope is still the one and only Ratzinger, who, in fact, never did resign with his “Declaratio”, but rather kept the name, title, white cassock, Apostolic blessing, and residence in the Vatican.  For just as “the pope is only one”, as the same Benedict fondly repeats, so the Pope is still himself and, consequently, Bergoglio is an anti-pope.

As Prof. Taormina notes — who has already expressed some problems with the pontificate of Francis — “The situation uncovered by Attorney Acosta – as by other journalists and experts before her – and the collection of facts reconstructed at the Libero Quotidiano surely requires a more profound investigation of the documents and a study of them by canonists in the appropriate ecclesiastical centers.

“From the very moment of his “choice” it has been affirmed in the most accredited positions of the Roman Curia, that Ratzinger was making concrete a situation which, at the level of of Petrine acts, maintained him on that which pertained to him, leaving for others the mere materiality of power (practical functions).”

As the thesis of Attorney Acosta supports, on top of the “invalid resignation”, there is also invalid the manner in which some ecclesiastics have wanted to interpret it as a “Resignation of the Papacy”, (1) as a free, conscious (but invalid) declaration of a “Papal Renunciation of two practical functions”: (2) as a “trick” planned by Ratzinger to cage the “St. Gallen Mafia” (the lobby of modernist Cardinals hostile to him), while at the same time offering the modernists a self-deception which caused them to abusively appropriate the throne of Peter.  It remains that that document, according to Accost and others, read as a “resignation”, has no basis in law.

To give a simple example of that of which we speak, it would be as if an elderly property owner of one villa might say, “Since I am begining to suffer from the cold, I renounce going to my villa in the winter”,.

But his neighbors interpret that declaration as if he had said, “I am abandoning my villa and I renounce its property rights”, and occupy it. Meanwhile the meek and defenseless property owner lets them do as they please, but every once a while remarks:  “The property owner is only one (myself!)”, in the hope that someone comes and drives his neighbors out.

In this manner, Benedict would have chosen to not react, to not accuse Bergoglio openly of being an antipope: and for this reason uses a veiled manner of expression, logically subtle, but along with which he repeats “The Pope is me”, in hope that the clergy come to understand him and press that “red button” by declaring the invalidity of his presumed resignation and, consequently, of the entire Bergoglian church.

Attorney Taormina agrees:  “It is striking, in fact, the continual and studied ambiguity, in the arc of 8 years, attributed in the declarations of Ratzinger which, in their substance, seem to always repeat the same thing, that is, that he, Benedict, is the pope, and no other.

It has already been shown, in fact, that the sole pronouncements of Benedict which the Main Stream Media has presented to the world as unequivocally in favor of Pope Francis as a legitimate pope, have never been direct citations or “corroborated” by Ratzinger, but are rather, consistently headlines in newspapers, journalistic reconstructions of “I was told he said”, citations of other persons who say that “they heard he said” such words, or that “they had read” some missive presented in its original copy.

Considering the surgical precision of the language used by Ratzinger, it would be indispensable, at this point, to examine the originals of such alleged documents.

“In a person of literary and scientific rigor such as Benedict”, affirms Attorney Taormina, “an affirmation so cutting (such as ‘the Pope is only one’) cannot be other than intended out of a sense of wanting to send a precise and inescapable message, that Bergoglio has not taken his place”.

And if he “has not take his place”, then Francis is an antipope, and hence, until there is clarity on this question no Pope after him will be a true pope and the true Church would be finished.

As Attorney Taormina continues, “The very lengths which the Main Stream Media go to construct their narrative, at any cost, to make Benedict XVI declare that the Pope is Francis, constitute an element which makes the scene all the more grave, in the sense that it renders it, one way or the other, more and more plausible the reconstruction of the so-called “Catholic Reset”.  Moreover, this most strange present situation of two popes at the same time, has heaped up a quantity of doubts which can no longer be ignored.  Besides, the precision at which the Mass Media and Vatican have taken to avoid the question adds a further element which should give all the more alarm.

To sum up: What Ratzinger freely and consciously did do was to write a Declaration that delegated the most burdensome duties of his office (to Cardinals or Bishops, presumbably), but inasmuch as it was invalid, did not render the Apostolic See vacant.  It has been others, who have abusively interpreted this document as a “valid resignation of the papacy”, when it is in fact no such thing, or because it is much too ambiguous to be considered valid to effect such a thing.

Sergio Russo and Rosanna Iabobacci, in their book, “Couri chiusi, cieli aperti” (“Closed hearts, but open skies”) seem to have outlined the road ahead when they wrote: “There is no pope to depose, but there is a cardinal (antipope) to remove”, and, in the last consideration, one must chose one, or more, vicars, among the Bishops and Cardinals, to assist Pope Benedict as his side to fulfill thoses two practical duties which he wanted to renounce: to govern the Barque of Peter and to announce the Gospel.

Some readers will bet lost in such a controversy, but for the rest, if, as we hypothesize it, one is face to face with a subtle trick worked out by one of the most important intellectuals of our own day, to evade a coup d’etat by clever and determined Cardinals, how could anyone be expected to understand it at first glance?

Any interested party will have to read and reread with calm to understand it.  Behold why clarifying the matter in the appropriate centers of power would be to the advantage of all.

Hitting Woke Herd Immunity? 

We have become an absurd society obsessed with race but without any mechanism to develop a logical category of victimization and reparation. 

By: Victor Davis Hanson

courtesy of Rip McIntosh

March 7, 2021

emphasis added)

Two recent polls suggest wokism is beginning to recede on a variety of fronts, from less trust in Black Lives Matter and more confidence in the police to suspicion that the Capitol “insurrection” account is being used to unfairly suppress political expression while Antifa, increasingly, is seen as a terrorist organization whose violence has been ignored improperly by authorities.
There are tens of millions of Americans who either have been stung or turned off, by McCarthyite wokeness (and thus have anti-wokeness antibodies). More have been vaccinated from its latest virulent strains by their own values of judging people as individuals, not as racial or gender collectives. So lots of Americans have developed peremptory defenses against it. The result is that daily there are ever-fewer who are susceptible to the woke pandemic. And it will thus begin to fade out—even as the virus desperately seeks to mutate and go after more institutions.
Peak wokeness is nearing also because if it continued in its present incarnation, then the United States as we know would cease to exist—in the sense that 1692-93 Salem or 1793-94 Paris could not have continued apace without destroying society. Woke leftism exists to destroy and tear down, not to unite and build. It is not designed to play down and heal racial differences, but to accentuate and capitalize on them.
Scattershot ImmunityThe methodology of cancel culture is utterly incoherent and unsustainable. The shark was jumped by the case of the Dr. Seuss books—banned by some local school districts, even as Dr. Seuss Enterprises, in terror, pulled some of the late Theodor Seuss Geisel’s publications of its own accord. If the author of TheCat in the Hat is now an enemy of the people, then anyone and all can be so designated.
That is, after 70 years and millions of books in the houses of millions of Americans, our generation’s new Soviet censors have now decided that Seuss’s books of the late 1940s and 1950s do not conform to our 2021 sensibilities and thus should be banned. The same kind of canceling of Disney films and cartoons, and of particular novelists and social critics is now a matter of record. 
But what are to be the new standards of Trotskyization as we go forth? Can the Governor of New York be excused for months of policies that led to nearly 15,000 unnecessary deaths, but not for inappropriate kisses and touching of women? Or will he, as an Emmy-winning woke official, be exempt from punishment for both types of transgressions? There are no logical standards that dictate who is and who is not canceled. For now, all we know about the rules of wokeness is that living leftists are mostly not canceled by the woke mob for the thought crimes that ruin both the non-Left or the generic dead. 
The operating assumption is that the uncovered sins of the progressive are aberrations and not windows into their dark souls. Or perhaps woke leftism works on the same principle as carbon credits: the more you act progressively, the more pluses you have when minuses are summed up.
Most who have claims of being non-white are likely to find partial vaccination from the woke mob. Those who are independently wealthy or successfully self-employed likewise have some immunity. Then there are the defiant, the proverbial “Don’t Tread on Me” folks, who will fight, and thus encourage the zombie walkers to detour around them. 
The only consistent pattern of woke punishment is the shared logic of the lions and cape buffalos at the ford—devour the sacrificial, single, and vulnerable while avoiding the robust herd with retaliatory horns.  The Woke TaxWokeness eventually would put an unsustainable economic strain on the system. Wokeness is siphoning off billions of dollars from a productive economy through a sort of value-subtracted tax. We are spending a great deal of labor and capital for merit to be replaced in college admissions, in hiring, in grants, in publication, in the selections of awards, and in movies and videos, in everything—as racial, ethnic, and sexual identity considerations replace meritocratic, literary, artistic, and technological criteria, rather than just augment, them. 
Americans also are investing lots of capital in preempting wokeness—writing/saying/acting in ways that are not productive, but simply defensive. Diversity oaths and diversity applications, pledges, and statements take some time to read and digest. It will not be long before insurers will sell “woke insurance,” the premiums adjusted upward for those more conservative and of the wrong genealogy. It won’t be long before we all carry cards certifying that “At no time, did I say, hear, or think anything . . . .”
At a time of $1.7 trillion in student aggregate debt, and existential financial crises in universities during the zoom virtual campus, is higher education really so rich that it can add layers and layers of six-figure-salary diversity and equity coordinators? Most will not invent, create, teach, or produce. Instead, they are not merely monitoring but hindering those who do—either out of a need to justify their apparat or from self-importance. To believe otherwise is to suggest that on, say, May 1, 2020, the United States was an utterly racist society, without civil rights protections or any reparatory programs for those deemed unfairly victimized in the past. 
The result is that billions of Americans’ hours are invested in woke reeducation and diversity training, in workshops and group confessionals, and in adjudicating and punishing those who do not comply. Ad hoc and personal cancel culture result in thousands of days of unproductive labor as functionaries scour the internet on the scent of a past misspoken word, or an ancient but now incorrect gesture that can return to ruin a rival or an enemy. 
Our economy will soon mimic the totalitarian ones of old. Our commissars are like those of the old Red Army—ordering Soviet commanders’ counter-offensives during the Great Patriotic War to ensure that tank battalions were advancing ideologically correctly rather than just tactically or strategically soundly.  
Melodramatic? Perhaps. But 280 former generals, admirals, and national security officials signed a letter warning that if Trump were to bring in any federal troops to keep the peace after the capital violence of late May and early June, riots that saw systematic attacks on police, vandalism, arson, injuries, and looting, and neared the White House grounds, he should be considered a dictatorial threat. “There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some,” they insisted. 
The same group remained mute when nearly 30,000 troops flooded the streets of the capital in the aftermath of the January 6 riot inside the Capitol building. They maintain their silence as barbed wire and fencing now cordon off the city, and thousands of troops remain without a terrorist or insurrectionist enemy in sight—a militarization of the capital not seen since the Civil War. Tolerable and intolerable violence is predicated on ideology, not its nature or magnitude. 
Warring on the PastNo society can long exist if it believes that its own founding principles, its customs, and traditions, its very origins are evil and must be erased. Tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and redefining 1776 and 1787 as 1619, are many things, but one thing they are not is coherent. Trump was considered nutty when he warned that the statue topplers would go from Confederate monuments to Washington and Jefferson—and then when they did just that he was further ridiculed for being prescient. 
Who were the long-dead men who devised a system whose natural and eventual fruition is what attracts indigenous people from Oaxaca, the destitute from Somalia, or the politically oppressed from Vietnam? If evil white people founded an evil system solely for their own evil purposes, why would anyone nonwhite dare risk his life to eat from the alluring fruit of the inherently long-ago poisoned tree? 
If Americans are to accept that their Declaration of Independence and Constitution were frauds, abject falsifications of the real unspoken founding of 1619, then again what is to replace them? Whose statues are to rise, which books are we to be authorized to read, whose science are we to turn to? 
Everyone has feet of some clay. For every cancellation, then must there be commensurate bowdlerizing? Is there no adultery, or unkind treatment of women or plagiarism in the past of Martin Luther King, Jr? No violence or criminality in the life of Malcolm X? Did Cesar Chavez never send his goons to the border to beat back illegal aliens?Was Margaret Sanger only a sometimes advocate of eugenic abortion? Are the written biographies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be freed of anti-Semitism and petty corruption? Is Louis Farrakhan an ecumenical leader in the way FDR was not? Was JFK really our first feminist?
Are we to look to those who erased our supposedly awful past for guidance? 
Is it to be the architect of the 1619 Project? Long ago the ecumenical Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world . . . The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”
Is going back into one’s student days to find such an embarrassing rant, in the fashion of the accusers’ of Brett Kavanaugh’s desperate but false allegations, unfair? If so, this past summer Hannah-Jones bragged that, yes, it would be “an honor” if the summer rioting—700 police officers injured, 40 deaths, and billions in property damages and hundreds—be called henceforth “the 1619 riots.”  
At the height of tensions, she advised, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” And she added, “Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” Did the Times consider its essayist inflammatory?TribesIn our self-celebrated liberal society are we all to be reduced to identifying by race? But first, do we even have the ability to ascertain who is and is not white or black or brown?
Most illiberal societies in the past that tried such stigmatization of race, ethnicity, or religion did not end so well—from the Ottomans and the Third Reich to the former Yugoslavians, Rwandans, and Iraqis. One eighth, one fourth, or one half makes one a person of color—or not color? Shall we seek knowledge of one-drop of tell-tale bloodlines from the archived jurisprudence of the antebellum South? 
If Peruvian George Zimmerman had only used his matronymic, and Latinized his first name, then would a Jorge Mesa have become a sympathetic character who lost a fair fight with Trayvon Martin rather than reduced by the New York Times to a strange category of “white Hispanic” hoodlum, with the additional odor of a Germanized patronymic.
Why does class bow to race, since the former seems to trump the latter. If we forget percentages for a moment, and also forget that we are individuals, not anonymous cogs of vast racial wheels, in absolute numbers, there are roughly (in some studies) more poor white people—both those earning incomes below the poverty level and those with no income at all—than all other commensurate poor minorities combined. Were these supposed to be the targets of Barack Obama’s “clingers” remarks, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” John McCain’s “crazies,” or Joe Biden’s “dregs,” “chumps,” and “Neanderthals”? 
Apparently, the supposedly all-powerful, all-determining Oz-like role of racial supremacy and the unearned privilege that accompanies it, have aided those 26 million white impoverished very little. Or perhaps they did not get the message that they were recipients of unearned, all-determinative white privilege. 
Or perhaps they were just people, like the poor of all other races, who suffer from lack of or access to education or vocational training, the stagnation of entry-level incomes, divorce, family dissolution, bad luck, poor health, substance abuse, economic ill-winds, cultural disadvantages, self-inflicted pathologies, or all the other criteria that can make every one of us of every race susceptible to ravages of poverty.
Given that, in absolute numbers alone, there are more minorities that are not poor than the number of white people who are, how is it that class considerations are forgotten? Or for that matter, does any child’s destiny rest on just race—or a two-parent household living in Menlo Park rather than Parlier, or growing up with college-educated parents or high-school dropouts? And does race really determine all the other criteria that foster wealth or poverty?
Note the artifact that those who are now classified as nonwhite are wisely not often seeking to rebrand themselves as “white” to share in intractable “white privilege ”—in the fashion of the past when white majority racism was undeniable. Why are Asian-Americans, on average, enjoying over $20,000 more in average household income than so-called whites?
Why more commonly would so-called white people create an entire industry of constructing pseudo-minority identities—from Elizabeth Warren to Rachel Dolezal to Ward Churchill to Alec Baldwin’s wife, Hilaria—if not for careerist or social advantage or wishing to be cool by claiming not to be “white”? Why has the new racist “passing for non-white” replaced the old racist “passing for white”?
These are admittedly absurd questions. But they are quite apt for an absurd society obsessed with race but without any mechanism to develop a logical category of victimization and reparation.  
Predicating wokism on race is a tricky business, even if one could define and identify race, quantify its role in determining class status, and convince millions that it is moral to judge people by how they look. 
Like the Salem witch trials and the McCarthyite hysteria, when wokism fades, we are likely to see its real catalysts revealed. And they will not be found to be misplaced idealism, nor heartfelt desire for a more ecumenical society, but mostly the age-old, narcissistic destructive road to career enhancement, fueled by customary ancient fears, envies, and hatreds.

NEWS

ANDREA CIONCI: 50 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO THINK BENEDICT IS NOT THE POPE

MARCH 8, 2021EDITOR1 COMMENT

Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

BELOW FOLLOWS THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Many Catholic who think or hold that Bergoglio is the Pope simply respond to invitations to dialogue about the matter with short snappy phrases. When objections are brought up they brush them off without so much as an argument. For eight years they have reacted thus.

But Andrea Cionci is not letting them rest in their bed of ignorance, for today he has published a list of 50 Questions, to all of which they must have an answer if they are to sustain that Benedict XVI is not the Pope and Bergoglio is.

His article today, published at Il Libero Quotidiano’s online journal, is entitled, Benedetto XVI, unico vero Papa e il “Reset cattolico”: 50 domande per capire la tesi, that is, “Benedict XVI, the one sole Pope and the “Catholic Reset”: 50 Questions to understand the thesis.

To read the original Italian, click the image above.

The questions all center around the anomalies in the accepted narrative which claims that Benedict XVI peacefully and without any

pressure, insistence, force or threats resigned the Papal Office on Feb. 11, 2013 in such a way that on Feb. 28, at 8 P.M., he was no longer the Roman Pontiff, nor the Successor of St. Peter, and that after the fact, there was a legitimate Conclave to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio to succeed him as the one and only Pope.

By his collation of questions, Cionci proposes to every calm and objective observer who only wants to understand the facts and events, apart from any narrative control whatsoever, 50 questions to consider, whereby one might be able to see more clearly the discrepancies in the accepted narrative. These are above all questions for journalists and historians, but for the educated Catholic who can think rationally and who seeks the truth, they are an invaluable tool to being one’s own personal investigation.

The Great Catholic Reset is the thesis, which I proposed here. Andrea Cionci mentioned it in his article in the Libero last week.

Here are the Questions in English translation, which Cionci proposes in the Article above.:

INTRODUCTION

1) Do you think that – no matter what – a thesis of such gravity would deserve to be publicly denied by the Vatican, after a careful investigation at the appropriate ecclesiastical offices?

2) Do you think that, by logically organizing the facts, we can generally shed light on intricate and confusing issues?

3) How come the main stream media never address the question of the dubious resignation and instead give great emphasis to alleged endorsements that Benedict would have expressed towards Francis? Why are the same pro-Bergoglio newspapers always able to interview Benedict?

4) Do you think that, if the hypothesis were true, other issues of international politics and current affairs could be better understood and placed?

On Benedict’s objective ambiguity

5) In eight years, have there ever been explicit and “certified” statements by Benedict that the one and only pope is Francis?

6) If not, (as we have shown here) why has Benedict never given 1,285,000,000 Catholics this very simple statement, over eight years, to reassure them?

7) If Ratzinger had been a “neo-modernist fellow-traveller of Bergoglio,” so much so as to “have prepared the ground for him,” as is ventilated by some, why does he make people so eager for the definitive word “the pope is Francis,” while continuing to cast shadows over his legitimate successor?

8) Is it credible that Benedict keeps repeating “the pope is one” without ever specifying which one, just for the “sake of spite” and that he does not foresee the destabilizing effects of his statements?

9) If Benedict was not lucid, how could he have written books and given interviews until recently and, above all, retained for eight years what appears to be a “perfect, logical ambiguity”?

10) For example, when Benedict, in addition to “the pope is only one”, declares to the Corriere: “Some of my friends who are a bit “fanatical” are still angry, they did not want to accept my CHOICE”, is this equivalent to saying: “My fans are wrong to say that I am the true pope and/or that I did wrong to resign”? If so, then why doesn’t Benedict explicitly reprimand his fans for their serious and sinful statements? Why, despite the headline written by the Courier, does the word “renunciation” or “resignation” never appear in Benedict’s quote, only “choice”? (Source)

11) The first sentence could, therefore, also be interpreted to mean: “some of my fans are angry about my CHOICE which appeared to them as resignation, even though they did not understand that I did not resign at all and was preparing the Great Catholic Reset”?

12) Benedict continues: “I think of the conspiracy theories that followed it: those who said it was because of the Vatileaks scandal, those who said it was because of a gay lobby plot, those who said it was because of the case of the conservative Lefebvrian theologian Richard Williamson. They don’t want to believe a CHOICE made consciously.” Why does His Holiness seldom mention these actors, when commentators have been talking, for several years and insistently, mainly about the “St. Gallen Mafia” and international Freemasonry?

13) Could His sentence be interpreted, then, as an “affirmation through the negation of an off-topic object”? (Example: Mama asks Luigino if he stole the jam. He replies, “I have stolen neither bread nor butter.”)

14) So, could Benedict’s sentence be read as “in fact, I resigned precisely because of pressure from the Mafia of St. Gallen and international Freemasonry” (a historically anti-Catholic association that from various international lodges has given Bergoglio about 70 letters of appreciation)?

15) According to you, does Benedict’s sentence: “I made my choice eight years ago in full awareness and I have a clear conscience” exclude a possible subtext such as “I am serene because I have never resigned and, waiting for the discovery of the truth, I have consciously prepared the Reset of all the enemies of the true Church”?

16) Vice versa, if there were no such subtext, how could Ratzinger candidly declare to the Corriere della Sera: “I have a clear conscience”, given all the problems that, with his ambiguities, he would have procured for the only true pontiff, Francis?

17) How many mathematical probabilities are there then that, in eight years, in each of his direct statements, Benedict has always maintained a perfect and consistent reversibility “double face” of the meaning of his words, interpretable, on a closer reading, even better at times, as the “only pope is me”?

18) And if we wanted to consider Ratzinger weak, confused, or semi-modernist, has he ever made, on the contrary, a statement that could completely disprove the hypothesis about his purposely invalid “resignation”?

19) Would this allegedly veiled and indirect communication also be compatible with the self-invalidating juridical language found in Declaratio by some Latinists, journalists, theologians and now also by jurists?

20) Perhaps Benedict cannot, or will not for spiritual and/or strategic reasons, speak freely?

On the “Declaratio”

21) Why is the act, deemed to be a resignation, called only a “Declaratio”, a “Declaration”, and not “Renuntiatio”, a “Renunciation” as in fact is prescribed by canon 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law?”

22) Does it seem normal to you that the abdication document of a sovereign like the pope contains two gross grammatical errors (of Latin) and various other linguistic imperfections? (Here) Especially when the Code of Canon Law specifies how the act should be written “rite manifestetur,” i.e., duly*?

23) According to you, does Ratzinger know Latin, the official language of the Church, well, considering that he communicated with foreign cardinals in that idiom?

24) Why did none of the officials point out to him, in 2013, those grammatical errors and the possible juridical impasses in the text of the Declaratio?

25) Is it plausible that some understood and kept silent, while Benedict’s eventual enemies, blinded by the eagerness to collect his “resignation,” did not check whether in the subtle juridical detail whether that Declaratio corresponded to actual, legal resignations and that the media did the rest?

26) Why didn’t Benedict, a German theologian who has always been accustomed to very clear language, write in his alleged resignation the simplest thing, namely that he was renouncing the Munus Petrino (the office of divine origin), as the Code of Canon Law demands for the renunciation of the papal throne?

27) And why in a “Declaration” did he renounce only the practical exercise, the Ministerium – and not even all its functions – if Munus and Ministerium for the pope are absolutely indivisible? Vice versa, why has the Vatican, in the versions in Italian and foreign languages, translated Munus always with the word Ministerium? (See here).

28) According to you, Ratzinger did not know Canon Law well, even though he had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and was therefore close to John Paul II when the same holy pope, in 1983, inserted in Canon 332.2 of the relative Code this – perhaps not useless – distinction between Munus and Ministerium? Is it possible that the system had been developed for years, perhaps together with Wojtyla, as a “plan B of strategic retreat” for the case already ventilated by art. 675 of the Catechism, about a possible “coup”, with the advent of an apostate “false church”, a prospect also announced by the third Secret of Fatima, by the Scriptures, by saints, blessed and mystics?

29) Why does Benedict still repeat today that “there is only one pope”, but instead of becoming a cardinal again, he has carved out for himself this ambiguous role of “pope emeritus” which has never existed?

30) Does it seem acceptable to you that when asked by journalist Tornielli: “Why doesn’t he go back to being a cardinal?” Ratzinger replied: “Because I have only white robes in my closet” and that this remained his only official answer on the question of the white robe, a use moreover stigmatized in recent times also by Card. Pell?

31) Does it seem plausible to you that Benedict justified his resignation by saying that “the time difference of travel weighed on him” knowing full well that a pope is not necessarily required to travel?

32) In your opinion, could the fact that the canonist Monsignor Sciacca, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, in a national newspaper, reiterated in 2016 how Munus and Ministerium are – precisely – indivisible, (the node of the invalidity of the resignation according to the jurist Acosta) confirm the hypothesis of an invalid resignation?

33) Do you know of any other official response from the Vatican to the juridical objections to the Declaratio, expressed in journalistic or theological books?

34) Is it true that the pope has the power to change Canon Law (as long as he respects the dogmas), but if he does not, that an act issued by him must be subject to the latest official version of the Code?

35) If yes, then, in theory, could a pope also – as a result of errors or deliberate intent – sign documents that are not valid according to canon law?

36) Why has Benedict, while certainly having learned from the media that his resignation might appear invalid, never verbally remedied the situation, perhaps declaring verbally what many want to hear, i.e., that “the pope is only Francis?

37) If Benedict wrote the Declaratio roughly, without veiled intentions, how likely is it that the document, if interpreted as a resignation “casually” offers various self-invalidating legal mechanisms clearly identified in Acosta’s latest law book?

38) And, in the same hypothesis, how is it that, just as casually, no sentences have been found in the Declaratio which instead completely exclude – at least so far – the interpretation of false resignation?

39) What guarantees and certainties do we have, then, that a “lame” Declaratio was written by Benedict completely unconsciously, out of ignorance and/or approximation, and was not instead written by him on purpose in a self-invalidating way?

40) What sense does it make for Benedict to say today that in 2013 he was fully aware and with a clear conscience if the Declaratio was legally ambiguous and “poorly done” causing so much controversy?

Possible pressures suffered by Benedict

41) Why did Ratzinger say years ago: “Pray that I do not flee before the wolves” and why did he declare in the book-interview by Peter Seewald that he did not want to give up the spiritual part of his office?

42) Why did Obama’s U.S., in 2013, block the Vatican’s Swift banking code (“strangling” it economically) and this was unblocked a few hours after Pope Benedict’s resignation?

43) Why was his vineyard in Castel Gandolfo uprooted immediately after Ratzinger, as “pope emeritus”, pronounced himself in favor of the celibacy of priests, against the intentions of Bergoglio, the vineyard that had been given to him by the farmers and to which he was particularly attached since at his election he said “I am the humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord”?

44) Why did he say more recently: “They do not want me to speak”?

45) Why did Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Primate of Belgium and “great voter” of Bergoglio, (so much so that he appeared with him on the balcony at his first appearance) in his autobiography of 2015 put down in black and white dates, names and facts about the “Mafia of St. Gallen”, the lobby of modernist cardinals who, as reported in the text, aimed to make Ratzinger resign, focusing on Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

46) Why has Danneels’ book never been reprinted, nor translated into Italian, and why has it sold like hot cakes in France and Belgium, so much so that the last (used) copy has just been sold on Amazon for 206 euros? Above all, why have Danneels’ statements never been denied by the Vatican?

47) Why has the existence of a “Bergoglio team” been confirmed by Card. Murphy O’Connor and the matter was not followed up despite the fact that the apostolic constitution Universi Domici Gregis of 1996 instantly excommunicated all cardinals who were authors of pre-conclave maneuvers?

48) Why have some archbishops, bishops, monsignors, theologians, and priests been sanctioned, ostracized, forced into exile, suspended a divinis, or even excommunicated for declaring that only Benedict is the pope? Why, likewise, have journalists and professors been mobbed in their careers for similar positions?

49) In your opinion, would the current direction taken by Bergoglio’s Church and its objective departure from Tradition, justify the “coup” and Catholic Reset thesis, with a Pope Benedict restoring the “true church” in a peaceful and legal manner, with the simple discovery of the truth about his “resignation” by the bishops?

50) In such an eventuality, would Benedict have sinned or lied to protect the true church through veiled language? Would he have behaved inconsistently with what he declared in a document that is only called “Declaratio” but not “Renuntiatio”?